Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

British Rail

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the current state of rail services.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I am meeting the chairman of British Rail tomorrow to discuss a variety of railway matters.

Mr. Bennett: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman of British Rail tomorrow, will he point out that under this Government investment is at its highest level since the modernisation of the railways in the early 1960s and that the House will expect that if the Government are to provide the railways with large sums of public money from the taxpayers' pockets the least that the railways can do is to operate? Will he also tell the Leader of the Opposition to come off the fence and support the Government by calling for an end to the strike?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend knows from the answer to his written question on 7 June that investment in British Rail is running at about £781 million this year and it is due to rise by a further 50 per cent. in real terms. Since I became Secretary of State for Transport just over two years ago, I have approved 12 major British Rail investment schemes with a total value of £602 million. The figures that the Leader of the Opposition gave last Thursday are wholly wrong, and totally inaccurate. His claim that investment was 25 per cent. higher under the Labour Government is completely false.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State explain to the chairman of British Rail that the strike is not political and that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer threatens investment in British Rail, which has come not from the Government but from the traveller, he is merely exercising his usual form of bigotry?

Mr. Channon: No, I do not agree at all. The threat to increased investment comes not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer but from the strikes. That is the point that the House should understand. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer points out the facts of life. If the railways do not work reliably, people will try not to use

them and will not want to invest in them. I want to see more investment in British Rail, particularly to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be provided by the Channel tunnel in 1992. I ask Members in all parts of the House to join me in urging the parties to the strike to get together this afternoon so that the matter can be resolved.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the chairman of British Rail the fact that the travelling public as a whole, not merely those who travel on the railways, regard it as intolerable that strikes are taking place when there is a perfectly reasonable negotiating machinery for settling the matter without strike action? Will he therefore urge the chairman of British Rail to get on with the negotiations and in turn urge the unions to settle the dispute as it should be settled—through the normal agreed negotiating machinery?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Furthermore, I understand that at lunchtime today British Rail asked the three unions to come to talks this afternoon at 3 o'clock. I am sure that I can count on the support of the whole House when I say that all of us would like those talks to take place.

Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman of British Rail tomorrow, will he inform him that the proposals for the high-speed link to Dartford constituency are totally unacceptable to the people living there and that the only way to make the link acceptable is to place it underground?

Mr. Channon: I shall, of course, bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the chairman's attention. I think that he is already well aware of my hon. Friend's views and he will, I am sure, treat them seriously.

Mr. Simon Hughes: While the invitation by the chairman of British Rail to the unions for talks this afternoon is very welcome, will the Secretary of State make it clear to the chairman of British Rail that it takes two to negotiate? Does he accept that both his attitude and that of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been extremely unhelpful, suggesting that only one side had brought about the dispute when the management of British Rail is widely regarded as having been extremely unsatisfactory for several years?

Mr. Channon: What is important now is that we should concentrate on prospects for a settlement. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I should have thought that all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, would want British Rail's invitation to the three unions to meet this afternoon to be taken up and talks to begin.

Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present rail strike is undemocratic as only four out of 10 voted to go on strike? Will he confirm that if the strike is not over soon, rail users—passengers and freight—will move away to road and air on a long-term basis? Is he aware that people in great major cities such as York are looking forward to the denationalisation of the industry?

Mr. Channon: I know my hon. Friend's views on that long-term issue. There has been no decision yet and studies are still in progress. It will go ahead only if privatisation is


feasible and offers benefits to railway users. My hon. Friend raised another exceedingly important point, as businesses throughout the country will have to decide quite soon how they plan to invest in the light of the Channel tunnel. There is an enormous opportunity for British Rail to get a far greater share of rail freight than ever before, but that will not happen if the railways are seen to be unreliable. The strikes are doing grave long-term damage to the prospects of those employed in British Rail.

Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State seems to fail to appreciate the reasons for the dispute. Nothing that he has said so far goes any way towards resolving it. Will he tell the House when he intends to take positive measures to end the strike? What does he plan to do to bring it to an end?

Mr. Channon: It is not for the Government to negotiate these matters—it is for British Rail and the trade unions involved, and they have the opportunity to do so. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not joined me in urging the unions to attend the talks this afternoon. I hope that I have the unanimous support of the House, although I am not sure that I do. I ask all hon. Members to urge that all parties involved in the dispute begin talks at once and continue until they reach a settlement.

Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying features of the current dispute is the way in which the rail unions purport to represent British Rail as having hundreds of millions of pounds in profits? Does he agree that any detailed reading of British Rail's accounts shows that the railway network made an operating profit of less than £20 million this year and that it would be wholly irresponsible of British Rail to enter into negotiations for an award that it could not possibly finance in future?

Mr. Channon: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. As the House knows, there is a subsidy to British Rail of hundreds of millions of pounds, which also throws a new light on those interesting figures.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not simply a matter of pay? Will he tell the House how long the machinery for national negotiation of wages has been in existence? Will he say whether he has given British Rail instructions to terminate that, and will he give instructions for British Rail to withdraw the notice of termination? Does he agree that such a notice was part of the problem and that if he did not take action to prevent it, the Government are partly responsible?

Mr. Channon: I have not given British Rail any instructions on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman points out, there are two major points of dispute between British Rail and some but not all the unions involved. One is pay and the other is the bargaining machinery. Both can and should be negotiated. Any changes to the bargaining machinery that British Rail proposes do not come into effect until November. There seems to be ample time for negotiation before entering into senseless strikes which do so much damage to the travelling public and to the long-term future of the railways.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Can my right hon. Friend recall in his earlier meetings with the chairman of British Rail

whether he was ever shown a business plan for the Channel tunnel rail link? If he has not been shown such a plan, does that not give credence to the belief that British Rail embarked upon this massive project without producing a proper business plan?

Mr. Channon: A proper business plan will have to be produced for any high-speed rail link proposal that is brought before the House if it is to have a chance of getting through the procedures of the House of Commons. If and when British Rail produces such proposals as my hon. Friend has in mind, it will have to show proper financial justification as well as cover all the other points on which it will have to satisfy the House.

Mr. Prescott: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the need for talks, rather than describing one party to them as "cowardly" as he did at the beginning of the dispute. Has the Secretary of State read the statement made by the Railway Staff National Tribunal? Does he accept its finding that the 7 per cent. pay offer imposed by British Rail, which is one of the causes of the dispute, was inadequate and represented a cut in real wages? Does he agree with the tribunal that the exeptional productivity of railway workers over the past few years has fully funded wage increases and justifies a wage increase today? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that if the tribunal's findings provide the basis for a settlement acceptable to the Government he will not put financial obstacles in the board's way which prevent the dispute being brought to an end?

Mr. Channon: I noticed, rather surprisingly, that the hon. Gentleman did not urge the unions to attend talks this afternoon.

Mr. Snape: Answer the question.

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly answer the question. I also noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not condemn the strikes which are causing major disruption and interference to the railways and passengers. Of course I have read the decision of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, but it is for the parties concerned to negotiate, not for the Government. The parties could be at the negotiating table within a quarter of an hour and the dispute could be settled. I am amazed that the Opposition did not join us in that request.

M3-M27 Link

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the completion of the M3-M27 motorway link.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We hope to award the main contract for the Compton to Bassett section of the M3 extension shortly.
Progress on the Bar End to Compton section depends on our consideration of the inspectors' reports on the recent inquiries. We hope to make an announcement later.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend's statement will be greeted with relief and encouragement by the millions of motorists who have had to endure more than a decade of misery and delay along the present A33 link road, but they will not believe in the completion of the motorway link


until they see it. Will my hon. Friend be more precise about when he foresees the road actually being open for use by motorists?

Mr. Bottomley: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question about completion is 1991. It would be beyond the abilities of my crystal ball to give an answer to the second part.

Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had five public inquiries about this stretch of road and that between 1978 and 1987 there were 217 accidents on it involving personal injury? Could not my hon. Friend go down in history as the Minister who made up his mind? The Department has procrastinated for donkey's years. No new information will be forthcoming from an inquiry, so will my hon. Friend make us his mind? I was told that the section would be opened last year, but there is still no sign of activity.

Mr. Bottomley: The excuse—and the reason—for the delay outlined in the second part of my hon. Friend's question was legal matters; if I answered the first part of my hon. Friend's question, further legal problems would probably result. The fastest way of helping is to say nothing.

Road Congestion

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on his proposals to relieve road congestion in the south-east.

Mr. Channon: The proposals in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", together with the many major schemes already in our programme, will greatly help to relieve road congestion in the south-east.

Mr. Smith: Given the abject complacency of that response, will not the Secretary of State take note of the deepening anger among people in the south-east at how chronically worsening congestion is poisoning the environment, damaging business and driving the public slowly—in many cases, stationarily—round the bend? Does he accept that the way to tackle the congestion is through measures to halt the relentless increase in car use, and that that will be achieved only through a proper plan for transport throughout the south-east which stresses the investment needs of railways, buses, cycling and proper traffic management and achieves the right balance between car use and public transport?

Mr. Channon: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the last hon. Member to ask such a supplementary question, as I understand that he represents Cowley. I should have thought that people would prefer to be in work rather than out of it, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents. His suggestions would probably have deleterious effect on his constituency. I am trying to provide a decent road infrastructure in the south-east, and we are doing a great deal in Oxfordshire.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extensive package of new road building that he recently announced will be of great benefit to the south-east? Will he acknowledge, however, that it is on minor roads in constituencies such as mine that great difficulties are experienced? Will he do what he can to work more closely

with West Sussex county council—his hon. Friend the Minister has been doing so—and view favourably any further requests for transport supplementary grant?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of local roads and I will certainly look with sympathy at anything that West Sussex suggests. I know from meetings with my hon. Friend and other Sussex Members that they attach great importance to this issue and I shall certainly examine it.

A140

Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a final decision on the dualling of the A140 between Scole and the A45; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We shall be considering the case for some limited further additions to the roads programme when we publish a full roads report later in the year.

Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great increase in the volume of traffic on this road and of its appalling accident record. He will also be aware that we have had an Adjournment debate on this. He kindly visited the road early this year to see the problems that we have. He will also know that a little while ago there was a huge public outcry when it was announced that the road north of Scole would be dualled but that the road south in Suffolk would not. I appreciate that today is not the day for my hon. Friend to make an announcement but may we hope that when announcements are made later in the year, dualling of the A140 in Suffolk will be included in the programme?

Mr. Bottomley: Without making any commitment, I can say that I have stood by the side of that road with my hon. Friend and it is dangerous. I remember that there was a crash when drivers were distracted by a television crew. The problem is that it is an old Roman road and as it is straight further improvement will not produce the usual gains. We have said that we shall review it further and perhaps make an announcement later this year.

Automatic Ticket Barriers

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on arrangements for automatic ticket barriers in the event of an emergency.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The barriers are supervised constantly by station staff, who have been instructed to open them immediately if any emergency or severe congestion occurs. The ticket gates will open automatically if power supply or air pressure failures occur. Other safety features have been incorporated or are being developed.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that there are substantial demonstrations by pensioners today against automatic ticket barriers, which they regard as mechanical rottweilers? Is he aware that many pensioners cannot use the gates and need to be helped to the other side of the barriers? Given that there is far less fraud on the London Underground than in any other capital city in Europe, might it not be better to do away with the gates and restore the original system, which is far safer and commands greater public confidence?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman should suspend his judgment about the safety of the gates until we have the benefit of the report that London Regional Transport has commissioned at my request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] I am sorry that it is not available today, but I hope that it will be available in about a week's time. The hon. Gentleman can then judge what the consultants said on that important point.
For some pensioners it is a matter of getting used to the new gates. For the disabled, for people carrying shopping and those accompanied by children, there are manually operated gates, and staff will be on hand to let out people who find it difficult to use the automatic gates.

Mr. Carrington: In reviewing the automatic gates, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the big problems, and one of the major anxieties of my constituents, is the inability of London Transport to keep change machines properly supplied with change, which leads to enormous queues at ticket offices?

Mr. Portillo: I shall make a special point of ensuring that my hon. Friend's observation is conveyed to London Regional Transport. I am sure that LRT will want to put that matter right.

Ms. Ruddock: Further to the Minister's reply about safety, does he acknowledge the deep anxiety of fire fighters about the automatic ticket gates? Is he aware of the incident at St. James's Park Underground station in which fire fighters attempted to evacuate the station because of a fire but the automatic ticket gates failed to open when they pushed the alarm button and no station staff were available? Can the Minister assure us that he receives reports of such incidents, and what action is he taking?

Mr. Portillo: I must question the premise on which the hon. Lady began her question. She talked about the concern of fire fighters, but the advice of the London fire brigade has been taken several times since the gates were proposed. The hon. Lady will know from the Fennell report that the London fire brigade and the railway inspectorate were satisfied with the installation of the gates. Since then, the London fire brigade has looked at the gates again and made a series of recommendations, which are being implemented. Over and above those two levels of approval—from the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade—there is the report from the consultants, which will be available to the hon. Lady and the House shortly.

M6

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on providing fourth traffic lanes on the M6.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In about three years across Thelwall viaduct and east of Preston. It is too soon to say when construction might start on sections of the 80 miles of M6 widening announced in "Roads for Prosperity".

Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are sections of the M6 which even in 1986 exceeded the design flow capacity that would be associated with a four-lane motorway? Should we not go ahead as soon as possible with providing four lanes for the M6?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware of the heavy traffic on the M1 and M6 on Friday afternoons and Sundays as people go away for the weekend and return home? Will he ensure that when work begins to provide four lanes on the M6 consideration will be given to those periods when traffic is extremely heavy so as to minimise the chaos which occurs on our motorway network?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. It is not just chaos, but congestion. Often the solution to congestion is spreading the load, finding other modes or getting more investment. We aim to make progress with all three.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new or improved roads will be added to the trunk road network when his expanded road programme is completed.

Mr. Channon: Some 2,700 miles of new or improved roads will be added to the trunk road network when the expanded road programme is completed.

Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will be warmly welcomed by many people throughout the country, especially in Chelmsford? Given the announcement of the new motorway from the M25 and the widening of the A12, can he reassure people that the maximum effort will be made to keep noise nuisance levels to a minimum? Will he also ensure that compensation for land taken in building works will be paid swiftly and remedial work undertaken as quickly as possible?

Mr. Channon: I think that I can give my hon. Friend both those assurances. I am grateful to him for what he says. Perhaps he will keep in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic or with me about any detailed points that may arise.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State pause to consider that his programme for a new era of toll roads will take Britain backwards to the 18th century rather than forwards to the 21st century?

Mr. Channon: I think that that point will arise specifically on a later question. If we have a few extra toll roads in addition to what is in the public sector, I think that many people will very much welcome that.

Mr. Neale: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is no doubt among Conservative Members that he has engineered one of the largest ever increases in funding for the road sector programme? Does he accept that we have no doubt that he has created the best possible opportunity for further private investment? Does he accept that the greater the clarity that he and his Department can give as to the prospective schemes, and the greater the certainty as to time in terms of planning and construction, the more likely he is to get more private investment to come forward?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There has been a considerable increase in the roads programme, and that is very much needed. As for clarity in the private sector, I accept what my hon. Friend says. Of course, we are still consulting on the Green Paper that we issued at the end of May—

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman said "carroty."

Mr. Channon: Perhaps, in that case, I did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) clearly enough.

Mr. Snape: He said carrots, not claret.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Jenkins is no longer with us, but I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are still consulting on the Green Paper. I will bear my hon. Friend's points in mind.

Mr. Cox: As the question refers to new and improved roads, the Secretary of State will be aware of the "options", as one of his Ministers calls them, that are under discussion for London. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect those proposals to be presented to the people of London?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend and I are right to call them options. I hope to be able to make an announcement before too long to reduce the number of options available. I am aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of all parties that we should proceed as quickly as we can so that people know exactly what lies in the future.

Railway Unions

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the railway unions; and if he has any plans to meet them again soon to discuss Government investment in the railways.

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met leaders of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen on 12 July 1988 to discuss a report on the quality of service on British Rail. No meeting is arranged at present.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that for five years, British Rail has had no recourse to the national loans fund? That being so, what precisely did our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean when he threatened to cut the level of investment? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are using their best endeavours with the unions and management to try to settle the current industrial dispute? Can he tell the House what those best endeavours are and, as according to his answer it is now a year since he met the unions, will he, when he meets them, tell them that the railway industry would be far better served by having one union rather than three and that that might be part of any package discussed when the strike is settled?

Mr. Portillo: I hasten to point out to my hon. Friend that the reason such meetings have not occurred is not that we have been refusing to meet people who wish to meet us. On the point about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exhequer, I think that my hon. Friend would have made the same point if he had been there. When one listened to the unions urging that there should be more investment in the railways on the very day when the railways were shut down and when they were providing such a poor advertisement for themselves in attracting new customers, it was only reasonable that my right hon.

Friend should point out the extraordinary irony of that position. My hon. Friend will appreciate that whatever the position vis-a-vis the national loans fund, this nationalised industry has been heavily indebted in the past and many of its debts have had to be written off by the Government. The industry is still heavily dependent on public sector obligation grant.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister think that Rab Butler —the former chief of the Secretary of State—when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have had the unwisdom to make those public comments? The rail unions have given the Department a table of investment comparing the amount of state money available in Germany, Belgium and France. How do Ministers explain the fact that the level of state money being given to the railways here is so much less than that in every other European country?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman glides swiftly from talking about state money to investment, as though the two were one and the same, which they are not. As the amount of subsidy in this country has fallen—that is, the money needed to make up for the losses that the railways make each year—so the amount of investment has risen by and large. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about comparisons, he must compare the fact that investment in the railways today is higher than in any year of the last Labour Government and at levels rarely seen since the 1960s. Those are the relevant comparisons and that is the background against which the strikes are occurring.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the total failure of Opposition Members to condemn the strike, the only certain consequence of which is great damage to the travelling public and, in the long run, to British Rail's own employees?

Mr. Portillo: I do, indeed, find it sad and extraordinary. Opposition Members have been given the opportunity today either to condemn the strike or simply to urge that the unions should come to the talks, yet they have refused to take those opportunities. The Opposition spokesman now talks about whether the Government accept the findings of the tribunal, yet I do not remember him urging the unions to go to the tribunal in the first place.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In regard to investment in the railways, will there be an announcement today, in the first place to this House, about the projected rail link to Manchester airport which, as the Minister will know, is of major importance to the north-west of England as a whole?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, it is intended that there should be an announcement on that subject. If question No. 12 is reached, there will be some news.

Mr. Madel: Can my hon. Friend confirm that if the railway unions wish to negotiate a new system of arbitration in the railway industry, he would expect British Rail management to respond positively, but that once a new system of arbitration came in he would also expect both unions and management to abide by its recommendations?

Mr. Portillo: There is an existing system of negotiating machinery and arbitration. One of the unions has been willing to go to arbitration—so far, the other two have not.


The question now is whether those other two unions will discuss the decision made by the arbitrator in the case of the TSSA. The railway management is clearly working with the negotiating machinery that is in place today. If decisions are taken to change that negotiating machinery, that will be a question for further consideration. However, that does not seem relevant to the point that arbitration machinery is in place today and that one union has used it. The railway management is now offering to talk to all the unions on the basis of that decision.

Mr. Prescott: We are pleased to hear that the Minister now believes that the Chancellor's statement was ironic, if not untruthful. That is a further example of the Government being economic with the truth, as they are with the investment figures, which fly in contradiction with the evidence that they gave to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Will the Minister give examples of the unions refusing to meet the Secretary of State? Will he also make it absolutely clear that I have spent much time and effort going around all the parties involved, asking them to come to the table and to negotiate and discuss these issues? Even today, does he not accept that the tribunal cannot deal with the bargaining issue which is equally important and determined by ballots, under the rules?

Mr. Portillo: Of course, the tribunal cannot deal with that, but we are beyond that stage. The management is saying that it is willing to talk about the arbitrator's decision on pay. Indeed, the management has always been willing to talk about the bargaining machinery. I do not understand how the point arises. We are now beyond the stage of the tribunal in the case of the TSSA.
Referring to the hon. Gentleman's offer to mediate, the three qualities that I would look for in a mediator are fairmindedness, charm and tact—so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not on my short list.

Trunk Roads (Financing)

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trunk roads have been financed wholly or largely by the private sector since 1986; and how many cost-sharing agreements for trunk road schemes are under consideration.

Mr. Channon: In addition to the Dartford bridge, there have been 58 schemes in the past three years. A further 50 agreements are being considered.

Mr. Carrington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that that is an excellent way of increasing investment in the road infrastructure and obtaining value for money at the same time? Does he also agree that the introduction of tolls on roads would have the further benefit of ensuring that roads do not get clogged up with non-essential traffic and that commercial transport will then be able to get through properly?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am sure that as the new developments come forward—with some possibly being financed by tolls—they will provide extra opportunities for roads and will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the many road proposals in the east London assessment study

are all bitterly opposed by the local communities? Will he confirm whether there have been discussions with any private road entrepreneurs to build private roads in the area covered by the east London assessment study?

Mr. Channon: I know of no such proposals.

Transport (North-west)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new measures he is proposing to improve road, rail and air transport links in north-west England; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: I can today announce my approval for a scheme to link Manchester airport to the rail network at a cost of just under £25 million. The rail link should be ready by 1993 when the second terminal is due to open. About £1 billion of the £7 billion increase in trunk roads spending announced on 18 May is for the north-west. There are proposals to widen existing motorways, construct a new motorway west and north of Manchester, and for new bypasses.

Mr. Thurnham: In welcoming that good news from my right hon. Friend, may I urge him to press ahead with that work as quickly as possible and to ensure as few delays as possible in view of the importance of the air-rail link to the continuing success of the popular airport at Manchester?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely anxious that Manchester airport should have every opportunity to expand still further. I shall certainly do my best to ensure that the rail link is in operation when the second terminal is opened. I hope that that will provide general satisfaction in the north-west.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome that news, but will the Minister say something about the further development of the motorway linking Denton and Oldham, and passing through Ashton-under-Lyne?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the rail link to the airport. As he knows, four major motorway contracts have recently been completed. We are also engaged in the completion of the Manchester ring gantries, the completion of the M63 widening south of Barton bridge and the Derby road improvement in Bootle. I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if he has a detailed point to raise, perhaps I had better write to him about it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents who will no longer have to go to London and waste time and money spending the night there when they could perfectly well fly from Manchester. When considering these megaschemes, will my right hon. Friend also remember the village of St. Michael's on Wyre which urgently needs a bypass if the horrendous danger of the humpback bridge in St. Michael's is to be avoided?

Mr. Channon: I shall personally look into the problems of the village of St. Michael's at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Snape: Let me assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition welcome his belated announcement about the rail link to Manchester airport. Can he confirm that the £25 million cost of the project that he has so graciously


authorised falls neither on the budget of his Department nor on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he agree that future road, rail and air transport links in north-west England should be evaluated on the same basis for each mode of transport?

Mr. Channon: On the whole, they are evaluated on a very similar basis. [Interruption.] There is a difference between air, rail and road. I have been trying for some time to get that into the hon. Gentleman's head, but so far I have failed. The different modes of transport are evaluated on a very similar basis. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: we are achieving massive road and rail investment and, I hope, massive air investment, in the north-west. All that is to the general good and is much to be welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Intestate Deaths

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total of funds administered by the Duchy of those who have died intestate in the county palatine.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Tony Newton): The affairs of those dying intestate in the county palatine of Lancaster are administered by the Solicitor for the Affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster. He is the person appointed for this purpose under the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
In the year to 29 September 1988 the solicitor administered a total of over 270 such cases. The gross total of funds involved after payment of debts but before ex-gratia payments or administrative expenses were made was £1,129,298.

Mr. Pike: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy do everything in his power to ensure that the estates are dealt with as speedily as possible? Will he also ensure that any residue is used to help create jobs and to encourage development in the county palatine?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do everything that I can to make the administration of the estates as speedy as possible. I think that I referred to the question of a benevolent fund. I should be rather reluctant to tie that to the creation of jobs—many such funds are for charitable purposes—although naturally it is to be hoped that employment opportunities will be created as a result.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Ecclesiastical Buildings

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last met the leaders of the Methodist Church to discuss the use of ecclesiastical buildings.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The main forum for inter-denominational discussion of matters concerning Church property is the Church main committee which meets regularly under the chairmanship of the Bishop of London. Its last meeting was on 13 March and it meets again on 17 July.

Mr. Marshall: When my right hon. Friend talks to the Church Commissioners, will he tell them to emphasise, when they next meet the leaders of the Methodist Church, that many people in the House and elsewhere are appalled at the misuse of his position by the president of the Methodist Conference, who prefers political propaganda to religious faith?

Mr. Alison: As my hon. Friend has done, no doubt, I have read Dr. John Vincent's inaugural address to the Methodist conference carefully. In many respects, it is an inspiring and edifying speech, but the comments on public policy contain a substantial number of inaccuracies and suggest a good deal of misapprehension. In respect of those rather negative aspects of the speech, I propose to write to him in a personal capacity to try to put the record straight.

Mr. Frank Field: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the Archbishop's sermon yesterday on toleration? If so, would he care to give a copy to his hon. Friend the Member of Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)? Will he draw the attention of the House to the fact that while some of us may disagree with what the president of the Methodist conference says or does not say, it is a sign of our democracy that he can say it?

Mr. Alison: I heard the Archbishop of Canterbury's admirable sermon in York Minster yesterday. The sermon was directed at fundamentalists. Dr. Vincent's speech was not in any sense—[Interruption.]

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Dr. Vincent should address himself to matters spiritual and ecclesiastical and not make crass comments of a politically based nature?

Mr. Alison: I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. If Church leaders, in the context of Church occasions, make speeches on public policy, it is important that those speeches are accurate and factual. Given those ingredients, such speeches are to be welcomed.

Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reaction of some of his colleagues in the House this afternoon would have been precisely the same as that to Christ our Lord when he was alive?

Mr. Alison: Dr. Vincent's speech, as I have already suggested, contained a great deal of material that was accurate, edifying and inspiring. However, it also contained a substantial number of inaccuracies. I believe that there is no precedent for, or merit in, making speeches about public matters which contain substantial inaccuracies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Audits

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what information he has on the total cost of auditing the following accounts: (a) Palestine Currency Fund, (b) Paris Commission, (c) Doris Duke Gift Fund, (d) Anglo-German Foundation for Study of Industrial Society, (e) Sir Henry Dale Lecture Fund, (f) Winchester College, University and College Estate, (g) Tithe Act 1936, (h) Home Grown Sugar Beet Research and Education Fund, (i) Gas Levy (j) Distribution of


Energy Property, (k) Water Act 1973, (l) Iron and Steel Act 1982, (m) Antient Domain of the Crown, Jersey; what review of the need for public audit of these accounts has taken place; and when.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Comptroller and Auditor General has informed me that the total cost of auditing the 13 accounts listed in my hon. Friend's question was £42,000 in 1988–89. Eight of those audits flow from statutory duties placed on the Comptroller and Auditor General. The remainder are audits that he undertakes by agreement with the Treasury. In most cases this is because the funds concerned are within the control of a Government Department of which he is already auditor; the audit of the Paris Commission is undertaken at the request of the governing body of that international organisation and the full cost is recovered.

Mr. Field: Given my hon. Friend's knowledge of public service pensions and his well-known zeal for expunging inflation from the economy, precisely how do the costs of the audit fees for those accounts take into account the future liability of the index-proofed, inflation-proof pension of the National Audit Office staff who undertake those audits? Does my hon. Friend agree that no such future taxation liability arises under a private audit fee carried out by a private practice? What justification, therefore, is there for continuing those audits in the public sector?

Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend's question, alas, does not arise from the original question on the Order Paper. However, if he cares to table a question specifically on the subject that he has just raised, I shall do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

"Roads for Prosperity"

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding his White Paper "Roads for Prosperity".

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The numerous representations that I have received recently about "Roads for Prosperity" have mostly expressed strong support.

Mr. Yeo: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful answer. Has my right hon. Friend seen a copy of "Regional Trends" published last week which shows that East Anglia is by far the fastest growing region in the country by almost any measure that my right hon. Friend can think of, including the number of Conservative Members of Parliament? In the light of that, will he bring forward at the earliest possible date those proposals in his White Paper which will be of great benefit to improving the road system in East Anglia?

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I can give my hon. Friend that complete assurance. If my hon. Friend studies the proposals for East Anglia, he will see that £1,800 million of new schemes are added to the £700 million handled at the moment. That shows our awareness of the importance of the road network to the economic growth of East Anglia.

Mr. Foulkes: Is not the quickest and cheapest method of reducing congestion in the south-east of England to encourage firms in the south that have difficulty recruiting trained labour to move up to the north and to Scotland where there is an abundance of such labour?

Mr. Channon: I certainly would not disagree with that.

British Rail (Privatisation)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government policy on the privatisation of British Rail; and if he will introduce legislation to permit the privatisation of particular services within the passenger network.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): No decisions have yet been taken on the privatisation of British Rail. I have no plans to bring forward legislation for the privatisation of particular services in advance of those decisions.

Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that on the Fenchurch street line to Southend, the reliability of service is so unfortunate that on occasions, passengers find it difficult to establish whether there is a labour dispute, a strike, a work to rule or nothing in progress? Would not Southend be an ideal place to try an experiment with privatisation, bearing in mind that we have two lines from Southend to London, one which could be run by a private company and the other by British Rail? Will he bear in mind the successful privatisation of the cleansing department in Southend? Staff are paid much higher wages and provide a better service at a lower cost to the rate payers?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will understand that I am peculiarly well-informed about services to Southend. I have a lot of sympathy with him. This matter has been looked at several times in the past. The present position is that the Government wish to examine the case for privatising all parts of British Rail. My hon. Friend will probably agree that that would be a better outcome. Until we take decisions on whether and how to do that, I do not think that it would be right to divert our efforts into looking at the proposals on a line-by-line basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Short Money

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the percentage increase in the amount of Short money provided for the running of the official Opposition in the House of Commons in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The resolution of the House of 21 June 1988 provides for a maximum payment to the official Opposition of £839,709·90 in each calendar year, compared with a maximum of £493,947 under the previous resolution. This represents an increase of 70 per cent. However, because of the change in the basis of calculation of Short money, this comparison is of somewhat limited value. The actual amounts paid during any financial year reflect the irregularity of the submission


of claims. In the financial year 1988–89 the amount of financial assistance paid to the official Opposition including arrears was £1,035,649. It is not possible to compare the actual amount paid to the official Opposition in 1989–90 against the actual amount paid in 1988–89, since payments for 1989–90 are still continuing.

Mr. Bennett: When my right hon. Friend considers submissions for further Short moneys for the Opposition, will he consider the report that was published by the parliamentary Labour party review committee 10 days ago on the state of the Labour party? It reveals that many Labour Members practise the cult of the individual, are rowdy and ill-disciplined and have poor morale, and that it would help if they improved their parliamentary performance. Does he agree that the Labour party needs not more money but better leadership?

Mr. Wakeham: I have to say that my hon. Friend misunderstands the purpose of Short money. It is not to put right the shortcomings of the Labour party, which will require more than money.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the snide and sarcastic comment that we have just heard, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be wise for all Conservative Members carefully to bear in mind Short money for the official Opposition, considering that they will be filling our places after the next general election?

Mr. Wakeham: If it comes to snide remarks, the whole House knows where to look for experience. The House will continue to provide Short money for the official Opposition for many years to come, and the hon. Gentleman will be a recipient of some of it.

House of Commons (Access)

Mr Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has received any representations regarding access to the House of Commons by members of the public.

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman himself, have raised the issue of access for mass lobbies and for visitors to the Line of Route in correspondence with me, during business questions, and in early-day motions.

Mr. Banks: It is about time that we started doing something to make members of the public more welcome in their Houses of Parliament. Frankly, hon. Members seem to do all that they can to put them off coming here. Why can we not now have a proper inquiry into ways that we can improve access and facilities for members of the public, so that they can come here without having to have a Member of Parliament take them to get a cup of tea and a sandwich? It is about time that we made people welcome in this place. They pay for it.

Mr. Wakeham: These matters are looked at from time to time, but it is appropriate that I should repeat once again that the use of Westminster Hall is a matter for those authorities in whom responsibility for it is vested. The principles that govern its use require the Hall to be used only for parliamentary functions, royal occasions, a ceremony in honour of a head of state or an event with a

clear historical connection with Parliament. As my predecessor said on one occasion, one of the attractions of Westminster Hall is how little it is used.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House for some considerable time because although members of the public wait outside the Norman Porch entrance of the other place, often for many hours in the rain, no canopy has been erected for them, although there are often parties of schoolchildren. It is inexcusable that there has been such a terrific delay in erecting such a canopy. If it happened outside the precincts of the Palace, we should all be complaining loudly. Can something be done about this?

Mr. Wakeham: As I have said before, these matters are the subject of inquiry, and there are discussions going on with the other place. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has made a number of proposals, which are being investigated. It is hoped that it will be possible to respond positively in time for some improvement to be made before the onset of winter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the current investigations. Will the Leader of the House consider two things? The first is monitoring, over a short period, the time that it takes on different days for lobbies to get through the security system and into the place where they are meeting, whether that is the Grand Committee Room or the Central Lobby. Secondly, on the days when there are lobbies, could they be given the exclusive use of one of the channels of security clearance so that people on other business can have a clear passage through the other?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer those suggestions to the Committee responsible and which looks at these matters from time to time. It will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

European Community Debates

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours have been spent debating European Community matters since June 1987.

Mr. Wakeham: Some 163 hours, including 14 hours in Standing Committee and 11 hours on ministerial statements. This total excludes time spent on European Community matters during Question Time and during the business statement, for which timing could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he convinced that the effectiveness of scrutiny is proportional to the time spent on it?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not convinced of that. In fact, I am convinced of rather the opposite—I do not believe that the time is as well spent as it should be. That is why I am pleased that the Select Committee on Procedure is looking at these matters, and that is why I have had a number of helpful discussions with the Select Committee on European Legislation. I hope that all this will enable us to bring before the House proposals to deal with these matters in a rather more satisfactory manner.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the very strong support given by the British people during the recent


European elections, is it not time for this Parliament to transform its attitude towards the rights of Members of the European Parliament when they visit Westminster? We may have discussed these matters on previous occasions, before that famous vote was cast, but is it not time that we changed our attitudes and considered bringing Members of the European Parliament into our proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—not giving them a vote, but allowing them the right to attend our Committees, where on occasion they might have the right to speak?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his party receiving 14·5 per cent. of the total vote of the electorate is a strong performance, I should be interested to know what he thinks is a weak performance. As to access by Members of the European Parliament to the Palace of Westminster, the hon. Gentleman will remember that one of my hon. Friends moved an amendment during a debate that we had recently to make a modest improvement in that situation. I accepted the amendment, and the House passed it, but against strong opposition from Labour Members. They showed clearly that they would oppose any further suggestion of increased rights. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter at a parliamentary Labour party meeting to see how he gets on there.

Sir Dudley Smith: Given that media coverage of the European Parliament is most inadequate, surely it is vital that debates on important Community matters in this House should be in prime time rather than in the far reaches of the night, which happens so often nowadays.

Mr. Wakeham: The question of what we do in prime time is subject to a lot of competition. There is no more prime time in the day that I can find and something must disappear if we are to find more prime time for European matters. I believe that it is possible for the existing time to be better used. That is what I am seeking to achieve, to, I hope, the general satisfaction of everyone in the House.

Broadcasting

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he will take to make provision for a sound or television link from the Chamber to the offices of those Members and Officers who request it.

Mr. Wakeham: There are no plans to go beyond the recommendations contained in the report on televising proceedings of the House which advocated the installation of a monitor screen in each of the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Allen: You, Mr. Speaker, quite rightly, have the right to have a sound feed to your Rooms, as do your Deputies, IRN, the BBC and the press lobby. Could those rights be extended to Members of this House?

Mr. Wakeham: Obviously they could be, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that such a decision would be contentious. The unanimous opinion of the Select Committee on televising proceedings of the House was that any such system would tend to encourage Members away from the Chamber, would be intrusive to neighbouring Members and costly to install. I am afraid that that is why the hon. Gentleman received a negative reply when he wrote to me about this matter. My reply represented the unanimous view of the Committee.

Beer (MMC Report)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Anthony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the Government's response to the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. This was a comprehensive report. It recommended far-reaching changes in the brewing sector. Passionate views for and against its recommendations have been expressed forcefully since it was published on 21 March. We have listened carefully to views from all quarters—large and small brewers, the tenants, and most importantly, the consumers. But before we announce our decisions I should like to restate the Government's position in relation to this and all other MMC reports.
The essence of the Government's view is that competition is good for industry and commerce and, above all, for consumers. It encourages enterprise, greater productivity, greater diversity and lower prices. In general, the operation of the market delivers the benefits of competition to the consumer. But sometimes the Government have to step in—in mergers, restrictive and anti-competitive practices, and monopolies. And the ultimate sanction which the Government hold—and exercise when necessary—is to order divestment. Without this sanction our policies to ensure that competition is kept free would be without force and effect.
Certain preliminary conclusions were announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8 June; and my right hon. and noble Friend made a further statement of the Government's position during a debate in another place on 14 June. We made it clear that certain measures would apply to the national brewers but not to regional and local brewers.
I now turn to the specific decisions we have reached on matters covered in the MMC's recommendations. We have taken particular note of recent further evidence of the need for more competition in the supply of soft drinks and low-alcohol beers to pubs. We have decided therefore that tenants of the national brewers should be free to buy those and certain other products from any source, free of ties. Products thus freed from the tie will include non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beers, soft drinks, ciders, wines and spirits. These measures should significantly enhance competition in the supply of those products.
All brewers will be required to supply beer to the wholesale trade at prices no more than those in a published list. The MMC showed that some wholesalers had been prevented from operating in the market because brewers had refused them supplies. These measures, and others I shall shortly come to, should stimulate a more open and competitive wholesale market in beer and other drinks.
We agree with the MMC's conclusion that licensed tenants must be given greater security of tenure in the new circumstances. I confirm that amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits to give licensed tenants the same protection as other business tenants. We are conscious that many tenants have found themselves in an uncertain position since the MMC report was published. In some cases they have already been served with notice to quit. It is regrettable that some brewers have seen fit to take this action before firm decisions have been announced.
We envisage that subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, all tenancies which have three or more years to run from today's date will fall within the scope of the Act. In the case of tenancies without a definite term, they will fall within the scope of the Act with effect from three years from today, or from the first rent review after the legislation takes effect, whichever first occurs.
The MMC made a number of recommendations aimed at giving tenants further protection beyond that provided by the Landlord and Tenant Act. We have considered this carefully, and have taken particular note of the representations made by the National Licensed Victuallers Association that the power the brewer landlord has over the tenant is such as to justify a special level of tenant's protection. We have, however, decided that it would not be right to go further than affording licensed tenants the same protection as all other business tenancies.
We hope that landlords who have issued notices to quit to their tenants as a consequence of the MMC report will now withdraw such notices. We have announced what we believe are appropriate transitional arrangements. We do not wish to see the position of tenants unduly jeopardised in the period before any amendments take effect. If necessary, my right hon. and noble Friend will make an interim order under the Fair Trading Act 1973, as amended by the current Companies Bill, to safeguard their position.
The MMC recommended the prohibition of all new loan ties. The effect of loan ties is, however, very different from that of ties resulting from ownership, which are permanent ties to one brewer's products. Loan ties can and do change from brewer to brewer frequently. It is clear that in the right circumstances they can be pro-competitive. We have also been persuaded that these loans can be an invaluable source of finance for new public houses and particularly for clubs.
We have therefore decided not to prohibit them, but instead to require that they conform to certain conditions to ensure that they are not used anti-competitively. All loan ties must be capable of termination at no more than three months' notice without penalty and, in the case of loans from the national brewers, must be confined to beer.
We have already made it clear that the requirement recommended by the MMC that tenants should be allowed to offer a guest beer should apply only to the national brewers. We have also made it plain that the guest beer will be a cask-conditioned beer, other than stout. The issues to be resolved are who should be permitted to supply the guest beer and whether the requirement should apply to all exclusive ties entered into by national brewers, whether through ownership or loans.
We have decided that the right to take a guest beer should indeed apply to all exclusive ties entered into by national brewers. As to who should be able to supply to the houses of the national brewers, one view is that any brewer, other than the one responsible for the tie, should be able to supply the guest beer. On the other hand, the Brewers Society has suggested that only brewers with an annual output of less than 200,000 barrels may supply. That would exclude any other than small, local brewers. We would welcome further views on this point during the statutory consultation period.
I now turn to measures to address the central question of the size of the tied estate of the national brewers. The MMC recommended that no brewer should be allowed to own more than 2,000 on-licences. We have always made it


clear that we were prepared to consider alternatives provided that they dealt with the public interest issues clearly identified by the MMC.
The national brewers made it clear that nothing which fundamentally affected the strength of the tied house system would be acceptable to them. But this is the central detriment identified by the MMC. Furthermore, it is clear that greater freedom to purchase products outside obligations imposed by the brewers would be widely welcomed both by publicans and by their customers.
We have decided that all brewers who own more than 2,000 on-licensed premises will be required to release from ties one half of premises above this threshold. They must be leased free of ties to the company's products. As these premises will now become free houses, the owning brewer will be permitted to make the new form of tied loans should the new tenants require them.
At present there are about 15,000 free houses. On the basis of the data in the MMC report, these measures will add an additional 11,030 free houses. These proposals should enable a major freeing of the market without the compulsory divestment originally recommended by the MMC. The central problem identified by the MMC was that the tied house system restricts choice and competition. The MMC identified a number of ways in which the operation of the licensing system itself has this effect.
The licensing system exists to control the supply of alcoholic drinks and to ensure that such drinks are sold only by fit and proper persons. However, in practice, licensing justices take account of a wide range of factors in deciding whether to grant a licence to an applicant, including whether in their view there is a demonstrable need for a new licensed premises.
The MMC took the licensing system as given. However, in view of the consequences for competition, we believe that we should consider this matter further, even though the MMC made no recommendation to that effect.
It is no part of Government policy to seek to increase the number of licensed premises. But, equally, a licensing system devised for one purpose should not be used for another purpose, namely, to fortify a local monopoly. My right hon. and noble Friend, together with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord President, have agreed to look into this point further.
The main measures we have announced will take some time to put into effect. We propose that a period of two years should be allowed for those measures which involve modifying tenancy agreements or separating a business into a tied and free estate. At the end of one further year we propose that the effect of these measures should be reviewed by the Director General of Fair Trading. They involve significant structural changes to the market, and it will be important to review whether they have had the desired pro-competitive effects.
Throughout our consideration of the MMC report we have been in close touch with the European Commission, which is conducting a review of competition in the brewing sector throughout the Community. The measures that we intend to take are compatible with the terms of the existing block exemption from article 85 of the treaty of Rome.
The Commission's own examination is also looking closely at the effects on competition of vertical tying and we look forward with interest to the conclusions of the

Commission's study. When the position in the United Kingdom is reviewed at the end of three years we shall take fully into account the results of the EC review and any consequent change to the EC block exemption regulation.
Drafts of orders to give effect to the measures that we have announced today will be published as soon as possible. Parties whose interests are affected by such orders will have at least six weeks after they have been published in which to make representations before the orders are placed before Parliament.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Chancellor recall the enthusiastic welcome given by the Secretary of State to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, his readiness to grapple with the monopoly identified by the commission and his proclaimed keenness to protect the consumer? What has happened in the meantime to explain the embarrassing shift from initial welcome to the craven and complete capitulation which he has announced today? Could it conceivably be something to do with the immense lobbying power of the big brewers and the fact that they are major bankrollers of the Tory party?
Is this not a blatant example of a Government being bought and sold by its major commercial backers, a phenomenon which should be regarded as wholly unacceptable to all who are committed to good government? What price now the Government's competition policy and the authority of the MMC? Does not this climb-down completely undermine the role of the MMC? What weight can now be given to the important reports which are still expected on credit cards and on petrol retailing?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that allowing the big brewers to retain their ownership and their continuing power to loan-tie the so-called free houses gives them all the power they need, irrespective of any formal tie, to compel tenants to accept their products? Is this not therefore a complete failure to address what, in the Chancellor's own phrase, is the central detriment identified by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
On other issues, we welcome the extension of the Landlord and Tenant Act to tenants, but what protection is to be offered to tenants who will come under immense pressure from owners to contract out of the Act? Does he not accept that without that safeguard the so-called protection is largely illusory? Is this not an extreme disappointment to the smallest breweries? For example, what has happened to the sliding scale for duty on which they placed such hopes to improve their access to the market? Is it not the truth that after so much posturing the Secretary of State has shown, as many of us foresaw, that he simply does not have the bottle to take on the big brewers? Many public houses carry the name "The King's Head". After this climb-down we can expect many public houses to be renamed "Lord Young's Scalp".

Mr. Newton: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman scripted his remarks before he had a chance to study the statement. The notion that the proposals that I have put before the House represent anything other than a substantial change in the structure of the industry to produce a much more competitive framework in respect of the national brewers is far fetched. The hon. Gentleman might recall that the comments that were made following the publication of this report contained not merely objections by some brewers, but vigorous objections by the


TUC. Indeed, there was a letter from the hon. Gentleman himself on 29 March pointing to what in his view were the real dangers in the MMC proposals on tied houses and calling for somewhat different steps to be taken. The Government have addressed the defects in the industry that were shown by the report and in a way that will avoid the dangers to which the hon. Gentleman himself drew attention.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. Friend understand that his announcement is a huge improvement on the unfortunate proposal that was made originally? Will he clarify what he meant when he talked about half the pubs owned by the big brewers having to be free houses? Can he say whether his new rules will prevent brewers from continuing to increase the size of their estates? Will they still be allowed to buy and build extra pubs provided that 50 per cent. of those over 2,000 remain free houses?

Mr. Newton: Yes, that is the position. Our proposal is that half the pubs that they own over the threshold of 2,000 should be dealt with on an arm's-length basis. It would follow, of course, that if they increased their ownership of pubs they would also have to increase the number operated on an arm's-length basis.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the Government's refusal to grant full and immediate protection, including an enforceable code of practice, to all tenant licensees will be greeted with dismay throughout the country? Does he not appreciate that in many respects the licensed trade is different from other businesses, not least because the pub is the tenant's home as well as his business? Why can he not accept that there is a need for proper protection for public house tenants? Does he realise that allowing contracting out will mean that the brewery companies, if they wish, can simply refuse to grant a tenancy to anyone who does not agree in advance to contract out of the Landlord and Tenant Act? Does he not appreciate that security for the licensee is very much in the interests of the customers as well as the tenant, because customers do not want to see their licensee subject to the danger of being thrown on to the street?

Mr. Newton: We considered carefully the difficult balance that had to be struck and, as I said in my statement, we concluded that it would be right to stick to extending to this particular class of business the same provisions as apply to others. We had in mind the fact that, if tenancy arrangements are made so unattractive to brewers that they do not want to go in for them, that will hardly be in anyone's interests.

Mr. Michael Colvin: May I first declare an interest, not as one of the fat cats referred to by the Leader of the Opposition but as a simple tenant of a major brewer who would have benefited considerably from the initial Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations? If the Secretary of State's intention—by his initial, knee-jerk reaction that he was mindful to accept the recommendations—was to provoke the maximum constructive debate about the recommendations, then he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Instead of scoring what might have been a monumental own goal, the Government have come up with a winner.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the constructive part that he has played in the discussions.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Surely the logic of the pro-competitive stance by the Department of Trade and Industry, with the divestment requirement above 2,000 on-site licences, would have been to make divestment above that limit absolute instead of the 50 per cent. half/way house that the DTI has gone for on this occasion.
The Minister referred to the further consultations that will take place on the question of guest beers. What will be the nature of those consultations? Will they be led by the DTI or will it play another passive role, waiting for the industry to comment?

Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I expressed our views with genuine and complete openness in my statement. We shall need to lay draft orders covering consultations in the fairly near future. We shall then further consider precisely what arrangements should be made concerning where the guest beer should come from.
On the first point about divestment, I hope that it is clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that our proposal—that the national brewers should have to put at arm's length 50 per cent. of the on-licences that they own over 2,000—means that if they were to sell a number of pubs they would have to put yet another number at arm's length in order to fulfil the requirements.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I regard as a pragmatic and sensible programme for progress in the beer industry. Does he think that his proposals will protect the industry from foreign acquisition, particularly by the European Community?

Mr. Newton: The effect of the proposals, which increase the competitiveness and the service that the industry offers to the consumer, will be generally beneficial to the industry. I do not think that I can speculate beyond that.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In these days, which mark the decline in the fortunes of the Tory party, would it not be appropriate, in the name of democracy, for the brewers to conduct a ballot within the pubs as to whether they wish to continue to subsidise the Tory party?

Mr. Newton: I am quite content to leave it to the brewers to decide what surveys to conduct. The Government have paid more attention to surveys conducted by others, including the Consumers Association, that have shown strong support for the proposals that I have put before the House this afternoon.

Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us on this side of the House are concerned primarily about protecting the legitimate interests of the large and small brewers and the jobs in many local breweries, representing national and regional breweries, and about protecting the very delicate structure of public houses to which the British people are so greatly attached? Does he accept that the primary public interest appears to be to keep the maximum number of public houses?
As for the proposal regarding the size of the tied estate, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is still some danger that the freeing of over 50 per cent. in some areas


could jeopardise the variety of beer that is available from certain local breweries and the existence of many pubs that are only just viable? If my right hon. Friend sees evidence of closures as a result of the proposals, what steps can he now take to ensure that those pubs, particularly village pubs, are kept viable?

Mr. Newton: It is very unlikely that the proposals I have put forward this afternoon will have the effect that my hon. Friend suggests, especially when taking account of the guest beer proposals which are calculated and reckoned by the regional and small local brewers to have the effect of enlarging the opportunities for distinctive local and regional beers.

Mr. Peter Shore: As there is no evidence of a monopoly or of collusive price fixing by the six large brewers, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the MMC report was extraordinarily ideological? What are the Minister's expectations for a reduction of prices of beer—which, after all, is the major consumer test of what is the right policy—which would have followed the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations, had they been carried out, or the modified proposals which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward?

Mr. Newton: On the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I would expect the increase in competition to have its normal effect, which is to keep the downward pressure on prices greater than it otherwise would be.
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I must confess that I am in some difficulty in deciding who is speaking for the Opposition in this matter. The view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman is not only at variance with the report's findings but clearly is at variance with the views of those on his own Front Bench.

Sir Peter Hordern: As the new tenancies for the holding companies with more than 2,000 houses are to be run under the Landlord and Tenant Act, which applies to commercial tenants, what will happen to those tenants when the owners rightly decide that they must operate a commercial rent? Is that not likely to lead to the closure of the most marginal pubs, notably those in the most rural areas?

Mr. Newton: I very much doubt it. The Brewers Society's evidence to the MMC suggested that rentals of tied properties were about 20 to 30 per cent. below the full market rental. However, those tenants pay much more than they otherwise would for their beer. Our reckoning is that the two factors will roughly balance out.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: To some extent, I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
The Chancellor of the Duchy said that
tenants of the national brewers should be free to buy these and certain other products from any source, free of ties.
What sources and what products was he referring to, and who controls the key question of distribution?
The Minister continued:
As these premises will now become free houses the owning brewer will be permitted to make the new form of tied loans should the new tenants require them.

The issue of tied loans is crucial to many individuals. Precisely what form of tied loans does the Minister have in mind?
Finally, the Minister said:
We have … decided that it would not be right to go further than affording licensed tenants the same protection as all other business tenancies.
Why has he taken that decision?

Mr. Newton: I answered the hon. Gentleman's third question in response to an earlier question when I said that it was in no one's interest to make pub tenancies so unattractive that the brewers would turn away from them altogether.
On the issue of detriment and whether there is what the commission called a complex monopoly, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the substantial list of detriments which are set out in the MMC report. I have it in front of me, but I shall not attempt to read it to the House. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is not a complex monopoly, we must simply agree to differ.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the tied loans, it should be made absolutely clear that we do not think it right to prevent arm's-length pubs from enjoying the advantages of a loan tie which have been pressed on us in a number of other cases, including clubs, and which the House welcomed when I made the announcement. We do not think it right to deny arm's-length pubs that right, but they will have the same protection—the capacity to withdraw at three months' notice if they wish—and of course they will be free to take a loan tie from anybody, not necessarily the brewery which owns the pub.

Sir Giles Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for the care with which they have tried to deal with the central issue of the report. As to the disposal of 2,000 pubs, what is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the reduction in the market that will therefore pass from the six major brewers to those who will compete from outside the hallowed circles?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's initial remarks. I cannot make a realistic estimate of the precise changes in the amount of barrelage supplied by one brewer or another. In the short term, despite the arm's-length proposal, it is unlikely that pubs will suddenly decide to change completely from the beer to which their customers are accustomed to another beer. Over a period it is likely substantially to widen the choice available in all pubs.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does the Minister intend to disband the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? What is the point of a long, independent inquiry on behalf of the consumer if political paymasters can simply lean on the Government and knock it to one side? Is not the Conservative party supposed to be the party of the free market? How can the market be free if the manufacturer is the wholesaler, retailer and landlord? The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is now considering the set-up for petrol stations. Will not the oil companies be laughing all the way to the bank to buy off the Tories at the next election?

Mr. Newton: We do not intend to abolish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We shall consider any future recommendations with the same care that we


have devoted to these and, if necessary, take the same substantial steps to address the problems revealed in a report.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the key issue for the beer drinker not who owns the pubs but whose beer he can drink? Will not an extra 11,000 free houses substantially increase consumer choice? Is this not, therefore, a sensible and balanced package that will increase competition but at the same time avoid the worst excesses of an Australian-style scenario for the brewing industry?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Minister aware that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about protection for licensees of public houses is of crucial importance, because often it is they who are successful or unsuccessful in running a pub? The Minister has repeatedly referred to consultation. Will he tell the House what that means? Is he aware that in the London borough of Wandsworth there is a small family brewery called Youngs which has a high reputation in the area not only for the quality of its products but for its care of the people who run its pubs and its employees? Is he aware that its chairman sent his observations to the noble Lord Young, yet not only did he not receive a reply but he was not even given the courtesy of an acknowledgement? What sort of consultation is that?

Mr. Newton: I shall look into the latter point. I have said that we shall listen to further thoughts about how far the guest beer provisions should be restricted to beers from smaller or regional brewers. It sounds as though Youngs may make representations on that, which of course we shall welcome.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on shaking up the pubs without breaking the glasses? Will he give further information about whether the major brewers—who appeared, when the original announcement was made, to prefer to hang on to their pubs rather than their breweries—will be content to continue as brewers and pub owners? Does he accept that, in effect, there are 23,000 more pubs in which there is at least partly free choice for the drinker?

Mr. Newton: I cannot predict precisely the reaction of national brewers. I suspect that they will not show the same enthusiasm as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) implied for the proposals that we have brought forward. I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a substantial increase in competition and choice for the consumer.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why has the Minister sought to dither on the question of guest beer? Why has he not taken a clear decision to establish the principle of the small brewers having access to the supply of guest beer? If he had done that, there would have been an immediate effect on small brewing companies, which would have been building up to provide the capacity to ensure that that part of his proposals was complied with. By delaying, a vacuum in the market may well appear.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair about the position as I described it. There is no doubt that

the small local brewers will have access, to use his word, to the guest beer proposal. The issue is whether it should be confined in some way so that only such beers can be guest beers, and that raises more difficult issues.

Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement brings good news to the British public, the consumer and the landlord and is particularly good news because it brings competition in the supply of soft drinks and real ale to many pubs?

Mr. Newton: I agree. Insufficient comment has been focused on the issue of soft drinks and alcoholic drinks other than beer, including cider. The effect of the proposals on those drinks will be substantial. The proposals are directed towards one of the main consumer grievances—the high price of drinks, especially soft drinks, in many public houses.

Mr. Tony Banks: What action does the Minister intend taking against those brewers who have already given their tenants notice to quit? Those tenants will not be assisted by his proposals. Will he consider giving tenants the right to buy the pubs in which they not only work but live? In view of the Minister's retreat in the face of the brewers' hostility, this seems to be the equivalent of brewer's droop on his part.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I simply ask him to reflect on the extent of the opposition from the TUC and ask him whether he is accusing me of backing down to the TUC. We have sought to produce a set of proposals that meet the anxieties about the original proposals in a way that my hon. Friends have rightly welcomed.
As for the Landlord and Tenant Act, we have sought to strike an appropriate balance. I said in my statement that, should we feel it necessary in the light of the pressures exerted on tenants, my right hon. and noble Friend will be prepared to make an interim order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to prevent them from being dispossessed, for example, for exercising the new rights that we propose to give them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard for the subsequent business, I shall endeavour to call the hon. Members who have been standing, but I ask for brief questions. We should move on to the next business at about 4.15 pm

Sir Charles Morrison: I note the helpful reassurance that my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) about the rural pub. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us retain some fears for the future of the rural pub? Will he please therefore take account of the representations that may be made to him? Will he bear in mind that too often in the past many policies have been perfectly sensible for urban areas but nothing like so good for rural areas?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says. None of us can predict with accuracy the result of the proposals in terms of the balance between urban and rural pubs that may be managed at arm's length. My general view is that the greater freedom that some rural pubs may gain from


the proposals will enable them to exploit the already considerable natural advantages that exist and, perhaps, strengthen them.

Mr. Michael Morris: As lager is the faster growing part of the beer market and as probably the finest lager in the world is brewed in Northampton, am I to understand from my right hon. Friend that the guest beer is to be opened up to lagers, or are we to have no competition in lager?

Mr. Newton: The phrase I used in the statement was "cask-conditioned" beer. I understand that no cask-conditioned lager is manufactured in this country.

Mr. David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the package of measures announced this afternoon represents a sensible compromise between the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the brewing industry? Does he also agree that, above all, the measures emphasise the importance the Government place on promoting competition, which is the best consumer protection policy of all?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the brewers who have given notice to quit to their tenants represent a tiny minority of the brewing industry and that a number of the larger brewers, such as Whitbread, have issued a reassurance to tenants that there will be no notice to quit and that they welcome the measures announced today?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Come to the question, please.

Mr. Field: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, like Whitbread, many of the larger brewers have never required tenants to take soft drinks from a single source?

Mr. Newton: Of course, the arrangements made in respect of different tenants and by different brewers vary. I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I very much hope that the responsible approach he reports from one brewer will be followed universally.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with the brewing industry, draw to its attention the continuing concern about the use of restrictive covenants to stop competition, following the case in my own constituency in which a restaurant, which was a pub 37 years ago, has been told that if it wishes the covenant to be lifted it will cost £10,000 and that it will have to continue to use that brewery's beer?

Mr. Newton: I would not wish to comment on a specific case without the opportunity to look into it more fully. However, the general effect of our proposals will be to enhance competition and to reduce the scope for restrictive covenants of all kinds.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the survey which Market Access International carried out among 100 Members of Parliament which showed that only 23 per cent. of Labour Members wished the MMC proposals to be fully implemented? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, wholly

ignore the rantings of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is clearly seeking to score political points on the issue?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Come to the question, please.

Mr. Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend allay one fear? In countries where the tie does not exist, or in Scotland where there are far fewer tied outlets, there is a far higher brewery concentration and prices are higher as well. Which of his proposals will ensure that that does not happen in this country?

Mr. Newton: The effects of the proposals, taken as a whole and including the removal of the tie in respect of national brewers on non-alcoholic, low-alcohol and soft drinks, combined with the proposals on loan ties and on guest beer, will move us significantly in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thank my right hon. Friend for carrying out and responding to a genuine consultation exercise. However, I ask him for some clarification. Will brewers be free to choose which pubs suffer divestment? Will there be a maximum number of pubs that brewers can hold in various towns? Over what time must divestment take place? There could, otherwise, be an unfairly falsely low market.

Mr. Newton: I will make, briefly, four points in response to my hon. Friend. This is not divestment in the sense in which I thought he was using the word, but a requirement that a given proportion over 2,000 should be operated at arm's length. It will, of course, be for the brewers to decide which of their on-licences they wish to put into that category. The period involved to carry through the changes will be two years. They are large, structural changes to the market. There will then be a review at the end of the third year, after a year's experience of the full effect of the changes.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the public, realising that 23,000 pubs will now be free to sell guest beers and that more than 11,000 of those will be free to sell beers of all types, will not regard that as a climb-down. However, does my right hon. Friend have any proposals to ensure that the big breweries do not try to breach the guest beers rule by swapping lagers or by doing deals between themselves to introduce guest beers? In that sense, local and regional brewers would regard it as a betrayal of the traditions and ideas at stake.

Mr. Newton: I have already said that we are talking about cask-conditioned beers and that no cask-conditioned lagers are manufactured in this country. The other point that my hon. Friend raised is precisely the issue to which we shall give further consideration during the consultation period on the orders. We shall then decide whether some restrictions should be introduced to ensure that guest beer has to come from a small or regional brewer.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this package will be welcomed by consumers, who will especially welcome a greater supply and variety of low-alcohol beers in pubs, and the fact that the prices will come down from their outrageous levels at the moment?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I think that it will have that effect. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words.

Mr. Gould: Earlier, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to a letter from me and seemed to imply that I had recommended that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report should not be fully applied. As I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House, will he confirm that my purpose in writing to the Secretary of State was to urge him to apply the report in full and to take further steps to ensure that the major brewers were not able to evade its recommendations? In the event, the brewers did not have to bother as, presumably, they knew all along that Tory party Central Office was already a tied house.

Mr. Newton: I shall seek to respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made his point. I am grateful for the courteous way in which he did so. He knows that I would not have sought deliberately to distort his views —[Interruption.] I do not think that I did so, but if I did in any way, of course I apologise.
The point that I was making was simply that, when the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State shortly after the publication of the report at the end of March, he saw clear dangers—that is the word that the hon. Gentleman used—in the MMC proposals on tied houses and he asked us to guard against two threats. He now takes the view that the action that we have taken, which as we see it guards successfully against those threats, is not the right action. However, he must agree that, while wanting to go at least as far as the MMC, he was not himself endorsing the exact detail of its recommendations.

Points of Order

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise briefly to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether later this week the Leader of the House might be able to use his good offices to arrange for a Foreign Office statement on the position of the hostages in Beirut. This arises following contact that some colleagues had earlier today with the friends of John McCarthy, and with Jill Morrell in particular, following the sad news of Mrs. McCarthy's death at the weekend.
It would be a great reassurance to all those involved in seeking to achieve John McCarthy's release, and that of other citizens who are in a similarly hellish position, if the House were to extend its sympathy to the McCarthy family today and if the Leader of the House could grant my request later in the week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will have heard the sad news to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall, of course, refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and ask him to consider it.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help regarding the need for a statement on the National Health Service in Wales, because there is immense resistance to the Government's proposals in the Health Service White Paper. For several weeks my hon. Friends have pressed the Leader of the House in business questions for a Health Service debate in the Welsh Grand Committee.
It will help you, Mr. Speaker, to know that on I March the Secretary of State for Wales promised a debate on the White Paper. That promise is recorded in Hansard. However, we have had no such debate. The Secretary of State for Wales has refused to make a statement on the matter. Moreover, although working papers on the White Paper for England have been supplied, the Secretary of State for Wales has not given the people of Wales any working papers, although he promised such working papers on 1 March.
We demand a debate before the House rises. We demand the papers relating to the National Health Service in Wales. We demand that the Secretary of State for Wales comes to the Grand Committee or to the House because these matters are of crucial importance to the people of Wales. They are important to our valleys, to the rural areas, to the medical profession and to all our people. We believe that the Secretary of State for Wales is running away from an important matter.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that there is an Opposition day next Monday and that if Opposition Members feel so strongly about the matter, they could arrange a debate for that day?

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention one aspect of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). In reply to an intervention made by me in the St.


David's day debate on 1 March, the Secretary of State for Wales said that the Welsh Office would be preparing papers that week or soon after. It is now July and we have not a single paper on the Health Service in Wales before us, months after that commitment was given. Surely that should justify our demand for a statement and debate if nothing else does.

Mr. Wakeham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly look into the question of papers, although the question of a debate is more directly my responsibility. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is right to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said:
I hope that we shall debate the White Paper in the Welsh Grand Committee".—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 302.]
The Secretary of State and the members of the Welsh Grand Committee knew that its next meeting would be on 6 April, when the subject for debate was to be chosen by the Opposition. The Opposition chose to debate a matter other than the Health Service, which was a disappointment to everybody concerned. The next debate in the Welsh Grand Committee was just a short time ago, on 28 June, when the subject was chosen by the Government's supporters, who chose the valleys programme because that day was its first anniversary and, therefore, an appropriate occasion. Clearly, both sides of the House would welcome a Grand Committee debate on the Health Service; it is a question of when is the most appropriate time to organise it, and that is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. The Committee meets about every two months; it met recently, on 28 June; we shall do our best but we cannot make any promises.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member who is the Welsh Whip, then we must move on.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not have a copy of Hansard before me, but I recall that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 22 June, the Leader of the House said that we would have a debate on the Health Service before the summer recess. That was the promise. I repeat what I said last Thursday at business questions. I do not want to take the time of the House, but having promised that, the Leader of the House told me that I had no confidence in the usual channels. My confidence will wane still further if we cannot have a debate on the Health Service in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Wakeham: I have the words in front of me, and I said nothing of the sort.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who is the Whip on the Grand Committee, said that this matter was raised at business questions last Thursday. This is not business questions, and I remind hon. Members that a large number of hon. Members wish

to participate in a subsequent debate. It is unfair for Front-Bench spokesmen to seek to take Back-Bench Members' time.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear it in mind when he speaks in future.

Mr. Rogers: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I say as an hon. Member elected by my constituents that I take very badly the threat that you have just issued— —

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rogers: As to when— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please sit down. It was not a threat. I must have regard for the hon. Members who wish to speak in the subsequent debate. I was merely saying to the hon. Gentleman—and it is absolutely true—that a large number of hon. Members wish to participate and may be disappointed.

Mr. Rogers: I may be Welsh, Mr. Speaker, but I can certainly understand English.
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) the Leader of the House deliberately misled the House by suggesting that the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot use the phrase "deliberately misled."

Mr. Rogers: All right, the Leader of the House inadvertently misled the House, and perhaps he will take this opportunity to retract what he said in his reply. The Leader of the House suggested that the Opposition had the opportunity on two occasions to bring a debate on the National Health Service to the Welsh Grand Committee. However, the right hon. Gentleman obviously has not been informed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales of the fact that the working papers prepared by the Secretary of State for Wales were not ready for debate on those occasions.

Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to hear any more, in fairness to other hon. Members.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to call the shadow Leader of the House. However, I must again make the point that today is a rare opportunity for Back Benchers to participate in a debate on Select Committee reports. The hon. Gentleman's point of order will unquestionably be to their detriment.

Mr. Dobson: I want to raise an entirely separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any representations from the Secretary of State for Defence asking to come to the House to make a statement about the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the untruths about Birkbeck college which were published in The Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times on 2 July? The Ministry of Defence denied the truth of those accounts on the following Tuesday. It now appears that those stories got


into those two newspapers because they were being peddled by public officials—press officers of the Ministry of Defence. In those circumstances, we believe that it is right and proper that the Secretary of State for Defence should come to the House and explain which of the 217 MOD press officers were involved, how they came to be peddling those lies and what disciplinary action he intends to take.

Mr. Speaker: I have received no representations about a statement on that matter.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 4) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1088) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Seventh General Increase) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Darrell.]

ESTIMATES DAY

3RD ALLOTTED DAY

ESTIMATES 1989–90

Class VI, Vote 3

Department of Energy

[Relevant document: Fourth Report from the Energy Committee of Session 1988–89 on the Department of Energy's spending plans: 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 435)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £24,044,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on salaries and other administrative costs.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Sir Ian Lloyd: I am sure that Back Benchers on both sides of the House will have noted with great pleasure the energetic and forceful way in which you, Mr. Speaker, sought to protect our time. We value these opportunities to debate matters that come before our Select Committees and we believe that it is in the interests of the House and the country that we should have opportunities to comment.
I hope that my Committee, the Select Committee on Energy, has discharged its annual obligation to consider the Estimates of the Department of Energy and in particular to consider chapter 6 of the public expenditure White Paper and class VI of the Supply Estimates.
Last year when we undertook a similar task, we requested that the Department of Energy should improve its performance indicators and achieve a greater consistency of presentation. I am glad to say that it is the general view of the Select Committee that the performance indicators have been greatly improved and broadened and we look forward to that process being continued. We cannot yet make a judgment about the consistency of presentation because that is an ongoing objective which the Department will consider from time to time and from year to year, and obviously the Select Committee will consider that in due course.
The first subject on which I want to concentrate—the coal mining industry—has probably occupied most of the time of the Select Committee. In many senses, coal mining is a primary industry to this country and it imposes a primary financial burden on the state. There is no dispute about the fact that the industry's subsidies have been vast and are apparently unending, whatever its scale of operation. The industry's scale of operation has undoubtedly been reduced quite dramatically over the past decade.
We are concerned about the uncertainty of the industry's finance forecasts. However much year by year is budgeted by the Department and the Government in March, more appears to be required by October and this year is no exception. According to the exact figures in the public expenditure White Paper, the requirement from the state in January was estimated at £560 million; in February the Secretary of State told us that that figure would rise to £720 million and in July we were told that


there would be a summer Supplementary Estimate of £250 million which the Committee was told in evidence was "a temporary blip". All I can say is that it is some blip and, unfortunately, the evidence does not seem to support the use of the adjective "temporary", but we all hope that it is. We hope that, because of Sir Robert Haslam's undoubted achievements and leadership, these forecasts will be fulfilled. Nevertheless, some of us remain sceptical, and I think that that scepticism probably spreads throughout the Committee.
Break-even always seems to be about 18 months ahead. I suspect that what we are really looking at is a national reluctance to face facts whenever we examine the coal mining industry. There seems to be a genuine inability to conclude that the horizon is always receding and that we will never quite get there. I wonder whether we are being ground between the upper and the nether millstones. The upper millstone—I think that all members of Committee are agreed on this—is the fact that there is no secure substitute for plus or minus 100 million tonnes of indigenously mined coal. Whether it is deep mined or opencast is another matter, but there is no clear and secure substitute for it. I emphasise the word "secure". A great deal of argument can take place about what that means in different contexts.
The nether millstone is the fact that there seems to be no way in which our coal can be mined at world market prices, and no possible way of predicting exactly what those prices would be if we imported 50 or 60 per cent. of our national coal requirement.
The volume of international trade in coal and the competition is such that, in my judgment, the scope for market exploitation is small, although I fully understand and accept that there are many views on this question and that they cover a wide spectrum and are legitimately held.
Since there are no easy solutions, the Committee, considering the contemporary scene—it has tried to do so as specifically as it can—deplores the negotiating uncertainties which appeared to start between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal in Scotland, and which still seem to be hovering over the industry in a rather unfortunate way.
I think it is the view of the Committee that national policy—this is still a matter of national policy because neither coal nor electricity has effectively been privatised yet—should not be settled in the courts. Both are still in the public sector so there is a considerable obligation on the state to take the leaders of these two great and important industries by the hand and say to them, "For heaven's sake, get on with it and achieve a settlement." Even if both industries were in the private sector, there would still be such an obligation because it is in the national interest not to keep matters suspended indefinitely so that the managements of both major industries do not know where they are.
The additional £250 million Supplementary Estimate which the Secretary of State has asked for is discussed in some detail in paragraph 5 of our report. We noted there, with some dismay, that we were given four reasons for the extra money: mild weather, higher interest rates, accelerated closure costs and the repayment of existing loans. The Committee was somewhat dissatisfied with this explanation, first, because we thought that all those factors

could probably have been guesstimated at least somewhat more accurately further ahead and, secondly, because we felt that £250 million is too large a figure to be swept under the carpet in a one-line explanation.
On the broader question whether these matters would occur in some different institution or organisation, I should say that privatisation would not necessarily guarantee that the problems would be solved; nor would it alter the need for a national view to be taken, first, on whether coal should be mined; secondly, on how much coal should be mined; thirdly, at what cost coal should be mined—and certainly at what cost to the nation; and, fourthly, for what purpose coal should be mined.
That brings me to the other question that will not be eliminated by changing the structure or ownership of the industry. That question can be divided into separate parts. Again, the change that is foreseen will not necessarily solve the problem and eliminate these questions. One question is whether and to what extent the social obligation that will remain if we decide to keep a major coal mining industry in the United Kingdom should be borne directly by subsidy, indirectly through the price mechanism, or by a combination of the two. That is another way of describing the inevitable distribution of any burden resulting from a coal mining policy between the private consumer, the industrial consumer and the taxpayer.
Those questions will not easily be answered. If the record of the past 20 to 30 years is any guide—I do not share the most optimistic forecasts—those questions will be with us for the next 10 years. Whatever the answer may be, equivocation and uncertainty would be the worst possible outcome. Wherever possible, equivocation and uncertainty should be removed.
Perhaps optimistically and hopefully, in our report we used the phrase
a strong and competitive indigenous industry.
If the coal mining industry is a high-productivity industry, and it is becoming so at considerable and welcome speed, it will be competitive. Although recent productivity improvements have been dramatic, no solution is yet in sight.
The industry has received about £20 billion in subsidy, without achieving its target. It has borrowed and remains in debt to the extent of £4·3 billion. To illustrate the scale of that problem—generally speaking, such large numbers are lost to the public and to most hon. Members—that debt of £4·3 billion represents £86 per head of the population, and the total subsidy so far represents £430 per head of the population. Therefore, the Committee strongly supports new, specific and quantified objectives. They must be new if we are to solve the problem. They must be specific if we are to make sensible judgments about them. Obviously, if we are to be able to make policy measurements, they must be quantified.
The Committee was delighted that, almost uniquely among the major Departments of state, the Department of Energy described its research policy and performance in about 12 pages of "The Government's Expenditure Plans for 1989–90." That excellent example should be widely noted. None the less, some definitions are not sufficiently rigorous. For example, the figures under research and development include non-research and development elements. That can be clearly discerned from time to time. Also, energy efficiency monitoring and targeting are included under research and development, when they could not accurately be so described. Similarly, some


non-research and development nuclear programmes have been brought together under nuclear research and development. Again, that gives a slightly inaccurate and misleading figure when we should be able to know very precisely how much is being spent, where it is being spent and what the objectives are. The general analysis is greatly improved, and we look forward to seeing a continuation of it.
Energy efficiency is of increasing prominence. My Committee was in slight difficulty with that matter. Having taken evidence on the greenhouse effect over the past six or eight months, we are about to report to the House—a week from today—in great detail about energy efficiency in the context of the greenhouse effect. However, we felt that, in the light of the policy set down in the estimates, we could draw attention to what the Department is doing at the moment in some matters and what its priorities are.
Recently, the Committee visited the research installation at Grimethorpe and we were impressed by what we saw there. We were somewhat disturbed by the equivocation surrounding certain projects and the uncertainty, which was obviously having a depressing effect on the morale of those involved. If energy efficiency is as important as we shall suggest that it is in a few days' time, there is no doubt that the Grimethorpe project is one of the technologies that should be explored either to success or destruction, whichever the research proves. It should not be left in suspension, hanging and uncertain.
A great deal of work has been done in this country, in the United States and elsewhere, into energy renewables, and various suggestions have been made about what contribution these might ultimately make to energy supply in the United Kingdom. Although I have seen figures as high as 20 per cent., these generally seem to follow rather over-optimistic assessments both of the costs and of the technologies. More generally, fairly small figures, of perhaps between 5 and 6 per cent., are realistic targets. One then has to conclude that if renewables are to make a significant contribution to energy consumption—as everyone hopes, and as they must—a great deal more work is required on them.
The next issue to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the more complex and controversial one of fast breeder reactors. The Committee is suspending its judgment because we have decided that we should undertake a full-scale inquiry into this important subject, and that will be starting towards the end of the year. In the meantime, it is our view that the research and development work on the post-thermal reactor technology should continue and should not be seriously reduced in any way.
In that context I—like, I imagine, other members of the Committee—was somewhat surprised and disturbed to see late last week an advertisement published in all the national newspapers by a large number of scientists, including 15 distinguished fellows of the Royal Society. They said, effectively, that nuclear power provides no realistic, safe, or possible solution to our energy problems. I find that extremely disturbing, although I have the greatest respect, as the House knows, for scientific opinion and judgment. If those 15 members of the Royal Society who signed that statement had listened to all the evidence presented to my Committee and waited one week for the report of the Committee, which is to be published next Monday, I wonder whether they would still adhere to the view that we need not, cannot and should not develop

nuclear power. My judgment is that many of them, being distinguished scientists, and essentially the most rational of human beings, would reverse that judgment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am encouraged to hear that the Committee will specifically conduct an inquiry into the future of the fast breeder reactor and associated issues. What time scale does the hon. Gentleman envisage for its report, and when will it be published? He will appreciate the great concern in the northern part of Scotland about the dislocation that the effective rundown of Dounreay is causing, and the controversy that that is generating on all sides.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I should imagine that the Committee would start the procedure for inviting memoranda fairly soon—probably the beginning of September. The notice of this inquiry has been published. Those parties who are likely to be principal witnesses will doubtless already be preparing their evidence to the Committee. However, I think it unlikely that the Committee will be taking verbal evidence before the House resumes in October or November and, if experience is any guide, it is unlikely that the Committee will be reporting on this inquiry, which is both important and complex, within the first four or five months of next year. We shall obviously proceed with great expedition, in view of the general importance of the subject.
Another important matter is energy efficiency in the public sector. We knew that it was large, but it always comes as a surprise when one realises that the public sector—that is public buildings owned by the Government or public authorities—spent £1·8 billion on energy in the most recent year for which figures are available. We give that information in paragraph 20. That is a large sum, and we are somewhat disturbed that progress in improving efficiency of energy conservation in the public sector is less rapid than it might otherwise have been.
Since the report was published, I had the occasion to visit a major hospital, which I shall not name, although there is no reason why I should not, in the Portsmouth area. I discovered two interesting points. The hospital management told me that the hospital was designed for an average winter temperature of not less than 34 deg. and if the temperature falls below that the management has considerable doubt about whether it can maintain the right temperature in the wards so that it can avoid the conditions leading to hypothermia. I found that a rather dramatic conclusion because I realised that if this is the way in which we have been building hospitals, at least within the past 20 to 30 years, it shows a surprising lack of attention to energy efficiency.
I was told that the difference in the energy bill for one major hospital between one year and another could be as much as £1 million. If that is so, it reinforces the Committee's conclusion that this is something to which the Government must pay the closest attention.
I have now a general question that has assumed an increasing prominence in the debate in the press within the past few months, and that is the need for a Department of Energy. We discuss this in paragraphs 26 and 27. It is a broad and controversial subject and, again, there is room for many points of view. I speak only for myself on this occasion, but I hope that I can speak somewhat more objectively than I might otherwise have been able to do because, in almost all probability, I shall not be opening


the debate on the Energy Department's estimates next year, although I hope to be around. Therefore, I speak with objectivity when I say that I reinforce everything that the Committee has concluded. This is not the right time to disband, dismantle or move around the Department of Energy.
Energy, as a major subject with enormous political implications, is rising into increasing prominence, almost with every month that passes. That does not suggest that now is the time to disperse a major and important Department among other Departments of state, however competent. Whatever the other arguments may be for such a dispersion and reorganisation of Government, the Department of Energy is an essential means for focusing attention on national energy policies. It will be far better if that is done centrally under a Secretary of State for Energy rather than peripherally by any other Secretary of State who has energy matters as a subsection of his Department.
I have no axe to grind. The words in paragraph 27 are largely mine and I am glad to say that the Committee endorsed them. I believe that the work of the Department and the Select Committee must continue, because together they will get it right.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is convenient for me to respond to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), by beginning my contribution on the expenditure report and on the work of the Select Committee by emphasising the importance of the Department of Energy.
I have spent many years in this House; this is my 25th. I spent many years with the old Science and Technology Select Committee, which became the Select Committee on Energy. Over the years during our hearings upstairs we have been privileged to see the growing competence of the people who serve in and represent the Department of Energy. We have many controversial cross-examining procedural requirements, merely to satisfy the thirst of Parliament. It is not a titillating exercise; it suits my personality to be aggravating, aggressive and questioning. That is what Parliament is about. In those years we have seen some excellent officers—excellent at stonewalling, at remarkable revelations and, sometimes, at confessions. Nevertheless, the Department is important to Parliament.
I shall seek to suggest, perhaps in a slightly different way from the Chairman of the Select Committee, how I look upon the significance of the Department of Energy, the importance of the parliamentary role in the work and development of energy policy and resources, and the paramount importance of public interest.
In any kind of human activity there must be one essentially striking objective—what it is expected to do. I pose that question in relation to the activities of the Department of Energy. The answer is not difficult or original. Our linguistic facilities do not give us the opportunity to be innovative in this regard. As Lord Rothschild would say, it is self-evident. The Department of Energy is expected to meet national energy needs, but the question is how best to use our energy resources. All things spring from that and therefore the desired objectives

must be a corollary to that main pillar that substantiates the need for some central place in which to discuss such matters.
As we are talking about energy and the use of it, there must be, above all things, the highest standards of safety. Related to that we must have the infrastructure required to produce the best regulatory conditions, licensing conditions where they apply and planning conditions. It is also necessary to satisfy the consumer, the people who matter, those who pay. I believe that it is difficult to divide consumers from workers because they produce. It is also important to have efficiency of supply. Research and development must play a supportive role and we must have policies to assist such development in the public or private sector.
In the exploration of the North sea we must have a substantial offshore share of the industrial activity. Therefore, we need a central base, a controlling edge, to encourage the highest levels of competition. One important essential objective is the ability to control and monitor. At all times there should be a national register of what is happening and how it is controlled in the nation's interest.
There is also a need for co-ordination in normal and emergency conditions. In the widening sphere of privatisation Parliament should be more concerned about co-ordination at times of natural disasters and other emergencies. The promotion of energy conservation must also spring from the centre. It cannot be left to the tides that flow from profits and deficits. It must be a positive policy so that energy conservation is as essential to our energy requirements as the physical resources. Such objectives should also include a concentrated dynamic and continuous flow of resources and the ingenuity of professional minds directed towards exploiting renewables.
I have followed the Chairman's theme by asserting that there is a need for a central place where such purposes and objectives can be pursued. Three basic elements are required to meet such objectives. First, we want a Department that is efficient and economically effective. Secondly, the role of energy in the economy must be promoted effectively. Thirdly, there must be co-ordination between the Department, industry, commerce and the public utilities to achieve an effective national role and to provide an international lead regarding the policies and resources requirements that will meet the targets of the Toronto agreement and that will reduce the greenhouse effect of present burn technologies.
The national interest is best served by effective national involvement in the use of our energy resources—oil, gas, coal, nuclear and conservational renewables—whatever the conditions of public or private ownership. Once we have considered those overall objectives and purposes the need for a Department of Energy becomes imperative. My experience, as I have suggested already, shows that there is no doubt about that.
Any transfer of subject heads from the Department of Energy to other Departments would invite a disparate condition. Such a transfer would mean that energy policy became ineffective, remote, subservient to the mainstream activities of other Departments and out of touch with the reality that means that energy is paramount in our lives. Energy is at the commanding heights of priorities and urgency given its ability to stimulate the economy and to improve the physical and climatic environment.
Exuberance about having a Department of Energy must he tempered with a degree of prudence. We have the report of the Energy Select Committee before us, and I am pleased that the Select Committee on the Environment has also produced a report about the way in which the Property Services Agency's estimates for the cost of a new Department of Energy headquarters have stumbled from £4·5 million in 1987 to more than £12·5 million.
We can only assume from that that there have been delays and disruptions. Whatever the excuses, one thing is certain: the original proposal could not have been thoroughly thought out. Perhaps the less we say about that, the better. By using those words, I am not suggesting that something dramatically untoward has happened, merely that the National Audit Office has decided to look into these disparities and, in due course, the House will be able to learn what went wrong, why delays occurred and what the disruptions were. Having made out the case for the Department of Energy with a great deal of enthusiasm, I was wanting only the accommodation it needed, and no more.
There are many issues involving millions of people which relate to energy. However, even now, we have no energy policy, or only a very vague one. In the new fashion of dispersal and the Government's abrogation of their responsibilities, there is a likelihood that there will be no policy at all. In that case, how will Parliament have an effective role to play? Any energy strategy works broadly within the parameters of nuclear and non-nuclear development and promotion. When the expenditure plans are directed towards investment and restructuring, the people are interested in the impact of both and neither is the monopoly of Government or private enterprise. The extent of nuclear development, its location and share in the power programme is a matter for the people. They are directly involved.
In the non-nuclear sphere, the coal industry's share in the power programme is of paramount importance to whole communities. The exploration of oil and gas and its impact on the economy concerns the people, and only through Parliament can the people find effective expression of their national interests as workers, consumers and shareholders in the environment. Our report mirrored that fact. We referred to the fast breeder programme and doubted whether the guessing game of commercial opportunity in 40 years' time justified the running down of Dounreay by 1994. The Chairman of the Select Committee has indicated that this issue is of sufficient importance for us to look at it in the timescale which he has described to the House.
We have expressed concern about the levels of research and development and the difficulty of identifying in the estimates its range and nature. We have also expressed concern about the reduction of financial support to the Energy Efficiency Office. We mentioned the ending of the energy efficiency survey scheme, in which we discovered that for every £1 of public money spent there was £13 worth of savings and millions of pounds—in some cases, a 20 per cent. reduction in bills—of the participating organisations were saved. Why that scheme was brought to an end puzzles many members of the Select Committee. These and other examples affect the public and show the need for Parliament to assert and protect its role of questioning and challenging in a Department which is totally involved in the matters we are discussing.
There is one outstanding example. I hope that the country and Parliament will join together in finding how best to bring to an end a tendency which brings unnecessary hardship to whole communities—the acceleration of coal mine closures. We should respond with much gratitude to that special kind of man called a miner. He is unique because over the decades he has inculcated in our minds a sense of loyalty, sometimes misplaced, which has brought about a record for which hon. Members should be generously grateful.
In 1985, we had 169 colleries; this year we have 94. As was suggested earlier, there is only one colliery left in Scotland. This position was brought about by the stupid, silly and irresponsible bickering of two chairmen, one of the electricity board and the other of the coal board, who would not get round a table and act like decent human beings. Instead they used our money for costly litigation, while Shell brought in imported coal, not in bulk carriers, but in small ships through small ports in Scotland. They did that at a loss to themselves, using the loss leader so that when they obtained the contracts they would make more profit, while our miners lost their jobs. As I have said, the number of colleries has been nearly halved.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I have listened carefully to the expose and analysis of my hon. Friend. He mentioned the present position in Scotland where we have only one colliery left, Monktonhall, and the difficulties surrounding the litigation which is taking place between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal. My hon. Friend said that one aspect of energy policy should be security of supply. The South of Scotland electricity board decided, at the end of last year and the beginning of this, to import 1 million tonnes of Chinese coal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is hardly a country of political stability and would not necessarily give us security of supply in relation to energy?

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has a profound knowledge of the energy industry and was a Front-Bench spokesman on the subject. There can be no doubt about the factual accuracy of his intervention or the serious conclusion which he has drawn.
There were 171,000 people in the industry in 1985, and that figure is down to 89,000. The daily output of tonnes of the long wall face was 845,000 in 1985 and, with a dramatically lower labour force, that figure has gone up by 35 to 45 per cent. to 1,458 tonnes. The operating cost to obtain coal has been reduced from £42·48 per tonne to £38·25 per tonne. That is a graphic, elementary, statistical thumbnail sketch of coal mining performance—fewer coal miners and colleries, but a remarkable increase in productivity. By 1987, productivity had increased by 70 per cent. as against the pre-strike level and this year it has increased by 19 per cent. on last year's level.

Mr. Michael Brown: No one can deny the statistics which the hon. Gentleman has adduced in support of his argument, but does he think that the events immediately before 1985 had anything to do with what has happened in the past four years?

Mr. Leadbitter: All activities that impinge on an industry have something to do with it. Whether they are of great magnitude is a matter to arrive at by analysis. There was a strike in the coal industry and that was unfortunate. It brought about an incredible state of affairs—the nearest


thing I have seen to the creation of a police state. Aggravation was heaped upon aggravation, but that is not relevant to this debate.
The rate of productivity after the strike showed that nothing was in the minds of those who worked in the pits but a desire to make a success of the industry this time. All, including the management, have worked extremely hard to put this unfortunate past behind them.
However, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminds me that he has been to South Africa. We are all concerned about apartheid—I have never seen such unanimity in the House as there is against it. But there is apartheid in this country. Miners who have never been found guilty of an offence are still refused their jobs back. Such men are deprived of their jobs against the background of their kith and kin increasing productivity by 70 per cent. since the strike and by another 19 per cent. in the past year.

Mr. Martin Redmond: The strike came about because of the stupidity of the then chairman of the board and of the Conservative Government. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) had spent as much time looking into the situation in this country as he had travelling to South Africa he would probably be better acquainted with the facts.
The miners wanted the dispute to go to the tribunal which was set up between the coal board and the union, but the Government refused to participate in it. I find it rather strange that that same Government are now arguing— —

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is very interesting and important but, as a member of the Select Committee, may I say that I have read its report and I can see no connection between what we are supposed to be debating and the hon. Gentleman's remarks of the past few moments——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is pushing at the fringes of the subject. Perhaps he will now have regard to the terms of the debate.

Mr. Leadbitter: I certainly agree with your advice and ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a bit naughty and cheeky of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to say that, because he raised the point in the first place. However, the House is forgiving and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are understanding——

Mr. Brown: If I was responsible for subsequent events I must accept my share of responsibility and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might want to reprimand me for my original intervention.

Mr. Leadbitter: As usual, the hon. Gentleman apologises in the nicest possible way.
To return to my analysis, given the indisputable figures showing productivity up, and the pursuit of policies seeking to produce a degree of financial viability, and the hopes based on projections made in 1987 that the industry would have broken even this year, it is not without significance that British Coal showed an operational profit of about £500 million—a figure about which I am willing to be corrected if necessary.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes asked what other factors lay behind this improvement and pinpointed the strike as a major cause. Increasing competition from other fuels, unstable but lower oil prices than in the 1970s, inflation and high interest rates and the costs of servicing debt—these elements completely wipe out the operational benefits of the policies and productivity of management and men.
Also, a new term has crept into energy vocabulary—restructuring. It means accelerating closures and decreasing investment, which will fall from £650 million to about £500 million in 1992. That will help to make the books look good. But it is important for the House to consider the other costs involved. To pay for the restructuring programme, £311 million will be needed to pay off miners and to close pits—a high price to pay. No one yet has mentioned the social costs and the multiplier costs of a declining industry. No one has mentioned the knock-on costs arising from the closure of companies that supply the industry. Nevertheless, this restructuring will make the books look good.
Finally, imported coal is beginning to impinge on this country. More of it is arriving from some peculiar places and it is more than likely that it is produced by using cheap labour. This country can match the world in mining equipment and technology—we sell it to America, for instance—but we are using less and less of it here. Did we not learn the lessons of 1973, when oil prices hit the roof and everyone proposed not using oil? We did not. Oil prices have fallen to about $18 a barrel, so now everyone suggests using the cheapest fuel that we can get. The national interest should not depend on short-term price oscillations, however. That is a wrong philosophy and a wrong policy.
Let us look at the cost of regenerating industries in communities that have lost their livelihood. For every 2,000 people working in a pit community there is a tradesman to look after the service needs of the families. The social cost of keeping people idle is high. Does the House understand that it costs nearly £8,000 a year to service a man's idleness? My constituency has a high level of unemployment, although, blessedly, it is now falling. Each unemployed person would welcome a job on even £7,000 a year.
What a daft country Britain has become. What a silly, miserable, pettifogging idea it is to squander resources instead of using a lesser amount to promote the ingenuity and adaptability of our work force. Britain is not weak in the way that people abroad have tried to describe it. It is stultified by political blindness. It is more important in Downing street to overcome a peripheral crisis than to get hold of the broader issues in our country and provide a better deal for our people.
Our Select Committee report impinges upon the economy, upon our social well-being. It seeks to try to understand attitudes that are out of place with the modern dynamism that is required to keep this country great, our people at work and our economy healthy. There are a couple of million people out of work at an approximate cost of £8,000 per person. If we all sit down and do nothing, we will end by having nothing to pay ourselves.
The time has come for a Select Committee report to show that we must maximise the use of our energy resources. We must magnify the importance of the problem and invest in means that conserve energy and promote its better use. We must also provide the kind of


investment that will exploit to the full our indigenous energy resources—in this case coal. If we let coal die, a little bit of Britain, nay, a pretty big bit of Britain, will die with it.
In Britain a disease, a cancer, has stricken the shipbuilding industry, not because it was incapable but because politicians felt that that was the way to go. What has happened to the steel industry? Oh yes, it is making a profit, but once Britain was the largest steelmaker in Europe. Now our steel industry is but a major tiddlywink. One does not have to think twice before saying that, if our shipbuilding and steel industries and the use of coal are built up, Britain will not be the poor neighbour that some people in Europe seek to call it. We need to build up those industries, to invest in them and to put people to work in them. More than that, we must take note of the fine men who worked with fine officers, not only in the Department of Energy but throughout industry, to produce some guidelines about how Britain could make good in a way that will make it the pride of Europe. We will make energy tops if we say yes and keep the Department.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the thoughtful, important and constructive contribution by the Chairman of our Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). I am also happy to follow the equally thoughtful, important and constructive but somewhat more controversial contribution of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter).
I wish to concentrate on the energy efficiency budget that is exposed in the report. I readily declare an interest, which is well known to the House, as a consultant to a major energy management company. The energy efficiency budget, which was never a large percentage of the total Department budget, has been cut from £20 million last year to £15 million in the current year, and it is planned to reduce it further. I make no special point about that, as I accept that spending more money does not necessarily achieve more results. However, I wish to question, and not for the first time, the Government's priorities in their energy efficiency programme, and those are not necessarily reflected in a reduced budget.
The Government admit that there is still huge potential for improving energy efficiency, but they appear to believe that consumers are now well aware of that and will make their own decisions. In other words, the Government believe that investment in energy efficiency will go ahead because it is cost effective and because consumers realise that they will benefit by saving money. The Government are saying that market forces will do the trick. Nobody believes more in the market economy than I do, but I also believe that the market needs the right consumer signals. The Government's energy efficiency policy now needs a much higher overall priority in Government strategy. Much can and should be done which does not necessarily require increased expenditure but, rather, policy decisions. Let us look at regulation as one example. All my hon. Friends are reluctant to accept unnecessary regulation, and I share their philosophy. However, we need stronger guidance on building regulations and on energy labelling of appliances, as other countries have found. It is not good enough to try for 10 years to get voluntary agreement and progress in those areas.
Some years ago we saw the introduction of energy labelling for car efficiency. Nobody objects to that and it has worked as an important yardstick for the consumer. We accept regulation—perhaps reluctantly at first—in every other area of life. We accepted regulations for seat belts and we accept safety regulations wherever we regard them as necessary and in our own best interests.
It is time that we imposed a little more regulation in order to provide stronger signals to the consumer and to encourage the promotion of energy efficiency. I base that argument on the belief that energy efficiency is much more important than it was some years ago. The main thrust of the debate used to be that we must conserve energy because it is a finite resource, we are short of it, and it will run out. The main argument in support of greater energy efficiency today and tomorrow will surely relate to environmental factors.
If, within a few years, scientists reach a consensus that global warming is the greatest threat to future existence on this planet, further action will have to be taken. The consensus of opinion to the Committee, to the Government and to the Downing street conference is that in the meantime energy efficiency should be promoted, where it is cost effective, as an insurance policy if the day shortly comes when scientists agree that we have to take further and major international action to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide. Regulation must, therefore, play some part, but it is only a partial contribution.
What is needed, in addition to a little more regulation, is a priority programme of incentives. Again, however, we are faced with a Conservative philosophy dilemma. We do not believe that the free market needs to be motivated, but it does. If market forces are to operate, they need incentives. The Government have applied that policy in every other area. We believe that it is right to provide incentives to people to buy their own homes. That is why we give huge tax offsets to people with mortgages. We also believe that it is right that people should make provision for their own pensions, so we give them tax incentives. We believe, too, that the market signals are not strong enough to encourage home-produced food, so we give huge subsidies to agriculture. That is not challenged. We give all sorts of strong market signals by using the fiscal system to promote objectives that we regard as desirable. Why else do we spend taxpayers' money on urban renewal, job creation, huge training programmes and regional grants? We provide tax incentives to promote objectives that we regard as economically or socially desirable.
I believe that energy efficiency should also be regarded as a priority. If the market were achieving the energy efficiency objectives that the Government seek, my argument would be irrelevant, but it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant reminded us that the energy bill for the buildings and other places controlled by Government, such as the National Health Service, is £1·8 billion a year. It is conceded that we could achieve a 20 per cent. saving by means of cost-effective investment in energy efficiency which would have a short pay-back period, yet that is not happening. Despite the Government's initiative, announced last January, to promote that investment, we have still not been given any answers about when the programme will start, what is to be spent on it, what monitoring there will be and what the pay-back period will be.
Furthermore, energy efficiency is not happening adequately enough and fast enough in the rest of the


economy. We all know that there is a short pay-back period for much of the investment in industry and in domestic areas, but it is not happening because the market signals are not strong enough. One might argue that the Government did not need to reduce the tax on lead-free petrol to encourage people to buy it because there was already a differential. However, the Government reduced the tax and widened the differential. They intervened directly in the free market to provide a stronger signal. The same argument applies to energy efficiency, but it must now be regarded as a priority.
There is a major inconsistency in the Government's strategy. We apply one rule to energy efficiency—that the market will sort it out and we do not need to interfere—and we apply a completely different rule to all other areas of Government policy—the tax incentives in all sorts of areas, to which I have already referred.
There is even greater inconsistency and illogicality about the Government's overall energy strategy. Huge subsidies have been provided to the coal industry. We have allocated a special slot to the nuclear industry; we have protected it by means of extra subsidy. Now, for the first time, we are encouraging renewables by means of the special protection that is provided in the Electricity Bill. Coal has always been protected and the nuclear industry is now being subsidised. We are providing protection because we believe it right to keep those two major sources of-energy alive and flourishing and able to compete, in case we cannot do without them in the future.
The same must apply to energy efficiency. Even if it is cost effective, it still needs to be given a stronger market signal. The nuclear industry would die tomorrow without Government support and the coal industry would have dwindled long ago without it. Energy efficiency has been struggling along because it has not been accorded the same priority by the Government. We must rethink our strategy and give greater priority to the promotion of energy efficiency. The Minister will appreciate the analogy that it is rather like suggesting that the Treasury should maximise revenue by imposing more and more taxes without ever considering whether expenditure should be cut, thus making more revenue unnecessary. The Government's economic success and our prosperity during the last 10 years have been built on the opposite policy of cutting taxes because we have been able to reduce expenditure. We are providing the supply side of the energy equation with all the incentives, but we are not giving the same priority to the consumption side. If we realised how cost effective energy efficiency is and how well it could be promoted if we gave stronger market signals, my case would be accepted and adopted.
Even more serious than holding back the energy efficiency investment that we so desperately need and which a little more encouragement would provide is the disincentive to energy efficiency. What has happened to the neighbourhood energy action home insulation programme? It is dying on its feet, yet it was promoted by Ministers as the most cost-effective way in which to improve energy efficiency in low-income homes. There are other examples. Why are third-party financing arrangements for the public sector still so slow to get off the ground? Energy management companies that have offered to finance investment in the National Health Service on a

shared energy basis have still not been given the go-ahead, even though they could save the taxpayer huge sums of money by reducing energy consumption, while reducing environmental pollution.
Another example is the Government's deliberate encouragement of the industry to waste energy through their decision to privatise British Gas. The Select Committee on Energy and the major energy users council have received evidence that the 25,000 therm cut-off point and the tariffs now applied by British Gas as a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report encourage consumers deliberately to waste gas. If a large commercial consumer uses just below 25,000 therms, it has to pay the domestic tariff, but if it wastes enough gas to use more than 25,000 therms its gas bill goes down although its energy consumption goes up. What is worse, firms that employed energy management consultants to reduce their consumption found that by reducing their consumption to below 25,000 therms they were increasing their energy bills because they had to pay the domestic tariff. That absurdity should be remedied; it is one specific example of how, far from promoting energy efficiency, we are encouraging energy waste.
I conclude with a note to the Government, and I hope that Opposition Members will shut their ears for a moment. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that green politics are here to stay and will intensify when scientists internationally persuade us that we have to take action on global warming. Green politics are not a protest vote, they are not relevant only to the United Kingdom, nor are green voters only Guardian readers. They are mostly articulate, well educated, informed, represent an ever-widening section of the public and are mostly Conservative supporters. If we are to remain in government, we have to respond more convincingly to those views or our opponents will take the initiative from us.
The rhetoric of improving energy efficiency and reducing fossil fuel consumption to reduce the greenhouse effect and global warming has to be accompanied by action. Government priorities and strategies for greater energy efficiency have to be adjusted. We should start next week by accepting the spirit of the Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill on energy efficiency and encouraging the promotion of combined heat and power which is a major way in which we can reduce fossil fuel burn and improve the efficiency of electricity production. We should make a start by accepting the arguments of the Select Committee on Energy over many years and in many reports that energy efficiency is cost effective, but needs a little more encouragement. In the next Session we should follow that up with an energy conservation Bill promoting what is cost effective to address environmental problems.
The Government should take the initiative positively to promote investment in energy efficiency because it will improve our productivity, reduce our energy bills and, above all, will give consumers stronger market signals to make the investments that the environment and our future survival will soon demand.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate on the Select Committee on Energy's report. I add my


voice to those who have paid tribute to the work of the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd).
I should like to touch on one or two specific points, the first of which is the future of the Department of Energy to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. I represent Ross, Cromarty and Skye in the Scottish Highlands which is dependent for much of its economic well-being and activity on the health of the oil industry, not least the oil fabrication yards. The work force, and the people whose livelihoods depend on that work force, would view any thought, discussion or serious proposition that the Department of Energy should be wound up as extreme foolishness. It would be foolhardy indeed if we were to go down that track, despite the privatisations in the electricity industry which one can assume will be completed in the next few months. It is absolutely critical, and the report was correct to stress that we should maintain a Department of Energy into the future.
Turning to the oil fabrication sector, let me give the House one example of the dangers, or potential dangers, that confront the country and the oil industry. After 1992 and the Single European Act, it is extremely difficult to envisage how the Department of Energy will maintain the Offshore Supplies Office in its present form without its being counter to the provisions of the Single European Act. Yet time and again concern is expressed in the oil industry and the fabrication sector about unfair competition from other EC member states that are able to offer more advantageous power contracts or, through their system of local rating or local taxation, more advantageous property overheads for firms bidding for work against United Kingdom-based construction and fabrication companies. Therefore, there is a clear need to ensure as high a United Kingdom content as possible in the fabrication work carried out in domestic yards. Clearly, if the OSO cannot be maintained, a similar body would have a role to play.
A considerable worry is that Ministers acknowledge that it is likely that the OSO will run counter to the provisions of the Single European Act. They offer the industry a bland reassurance that some supervisory body or watchdog function will be maintained, but it has never been spelt out to those of us who are interested in what the Government propose to do in the next few years. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass my comments on to the Minister of State who takes specific responsibility for the oil sector, as there is growing concern about what will happen.
The problems that are fast approaching represent a strong argument, in addition to the many excellent arguments that the Chairman of the Select Committee set out, for maintaining a Department of Energy presence in the oil sector, and in all our energy reserves and production concerns.
I shall not follow in depth the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) about energy conservation, but it is worth putting on record the points about energy efficiency which the Select Committee set out in very fine fashion in the report. The amount of waste in the economy caused by a lack of attention to or emphasis on energy efficiency is marked. The Energy Efficiency Office, having had its budget reduced from £24·5 million to £15 million, will not be as effective as it should be. Speaking in another place, Baroness Hooper said that the proposed reduction was a direct result of the successes

achieved in the earlier campaign. Does that mean that the Department of Energy believes that the programme's work is complete? Baroness Hooper said that the Government will be "targeting our activities", but what does that mean? It is ill defined—

Mr. Alex Salmond: Less money.

Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Is energy efficiency still one of the Department's prime concerns? Government rhetoric about energy efficiency and the contribution that it can make to the economy and broader environment concerns is completely let down by the reality of the reduction in the budget for energy efficiency and conservation.
I was pleased that the Select Committee on Energy drew specific attention to research and development and industrial support. We have heard about the future of the coal industry, energy efficiency and the future of the Department. It is clear that within the evolving European Community and further afield, Britain will be left at the starting post if more is not done and more emphasis is not placed on industrial research and development and general support for the energy industry.
Welcome investment is being made in Britain, but all too often it is of an assembly nature and the conception, marketing and production is done in other countries, most notably Japan. In other sectors, conceptual work is done in Britain, but all too often, because of the lack of a coherent industrial strategy on research and development, manufacturing and production are located elsewhere in the European Community, frequently on other continents. That spells death for a nation that is seeking a long-term future but is an island economy. I was therefore pleased that the Select Committee's report drew attention specifically to the importance of research and development in energy. That point should be underscored.
I hope that the Government will offer an assurance, first and foremost from a local point of view, about the future of the Department of Energy and, more specifically, what will happen to the OSO as 1992 as the reality of the European single market approaches.
The report is timely and welcome in drawing attention to the importance of energy efficiency and a considerably enhanced role for research and development in this crucial sector of the British economy.

Mr. Michael Brown: A number of hon. Members have supported the recommendations made in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Select Committee's report. I did not share the views of the rest of the Committee. In the private deliberations that we held last week it was incumbent on me to explain why I differed from the rest of the Committee, so it is incumbent on me to explain why I sought to divide the Committee on the future of the Department of Energy and on another matter regarding the coal industry.
I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). He has done an excellent job over the years as Chairman of the Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). I disagreed profoundly with almost everything that he said, but he has a way of captivating the House and hon. Members enjoy listening to his speeches. I suspect that if


I were to pick up on one or two of the points that he made I should be in danger of being out of order, as I was half an hour ago.
I did not agree with other members of the Select Committee that the Department of Energy should continue because I believed that the Committee's remit was to investigate the spending plans of the Department over the past year and for the ensuing summer. The decision about whether we have a Department of Trade, a Department of Industry, a Department of Trade and Industry, a Department of Health, a Department of Social Security, a Department of Health and Social Security or a green department with responsibilities that are currently held by the Department of the Environment—in my humble view it should share certain responsibilities with the Department of Energy—is not one for a Select Committee or the House. We all know that one person has always decided the formulation of Departments. We should do better to wait until that person has made his decision.
We have an excellent Secretary of State for Energy and team of Ministers, but they need not worry about any changes being made to the Department because none of them will be out of a job. However, those who are members of the Select Committee on Energy will be out of a job. If there is no Department of Energy, there is no Select Committee. If there is a good reason for retaining the Department of Energy, it is because members of the Committee will be able to retain their status and because I shall be able to continue to enjoy my weekly audience at the feet of the hon. Member for Hartlepool as we engage in the rough and tumble of lively debate, which I should certainly miss.
On page XV of the report, I proposed that the following words should be deleted:
Furthermore, even at the risk of slightly affecting the value of the privatised companies at flotation"—
the electricity companies—
we believe that the Government should make it plain to National Power, PowerGen and the Scottish electricity industry that the strategic national case for an indigenous coal industry means that they must pay what the SSEB described to us in 1987 as 'a modest premium' over international prices to ensure that British electricity supplies remain secure. BC should not be forced to reduce its prices to the lowest prices available on an unstable and unpredictable international market, however useful these prices may be to all concerned in the United Kingdom as an indicator of the energy costs of our competitors and hence the real cost of energy.
It was not in the interests of my constituents or of our economy to go along with that part of the paragraph. After a lively debate, I sought to divide the Committee. Although I lost the vote, I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) for taking the same view. It is absolutely essential that every pressure is put on the British coal industry to respond to competition because that is the only way to wean it off the unending subsidy which this report criticises.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman expound his views on subsidised coal imported into this country, sometimes from countries where child labour is used in producing it? Does he want subsidised coal from various

parts of the world to continue to be imported? Is he in favour of that unfair practice and of bumping the coal industry in that way?

Mr. Brown: Will you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it would be in order for me to respond to that question? I am happy to respond, but I fear that the question goes wide of the terms of the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): This is a reasonably wide debate which covers policy. If the hon. Member wishes to respond, he is at liberty to do so.

Mr. Brown: I shall respond most happily. I do not care who subsidises what, so long as it is not my constituents as British taxpayers. So long as the subsidies continue to come from my constituents and those of other hon. Members, I have a major objection to them. I have no views whatever on other countries subsidising their products and giving British consumers the opportunity of a better deal.

Mr. Redmond: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall gladly give way again in a moment. Any country that subsidises its industries will do as much harm to its economy as Government subsidies to our industries have done to our economy.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is right to worry about taxpayers footing the bills. Is he aware of the cost to his constituents, paid in tax, of subsidising the devastation brought about by his Government's policies?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House in the early 1980s when I represented the British Steel plant at Scunthorpe. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I often sought to catch your predecessor's eye. During the first four years of my membership of the House, the BSC work force of 19,000 was reduced to 6,000 or 7,000. I never once suggested that taxpayers should subsidise my constituents and keep them in jobs producing a commodity that customers did not want to buy. On every occasion that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House to support Mr. Ian MacGregor, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, I publicly gave my full support to their policies. I can report to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as a result of the decisions taken in the early 1980s, supported by me, today the BSC does not ask the taxpayer for one ha'penny.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Rubbish.

Mr. Brown: It contributes as a taxpayer, paying corporation tax because it makes profits. It now manufactures a product which is sold because people want to buy it in preference to foreign steel. That is the position in which I want the coal industry to be.
I have been through what Opposition Members fear. In my constituency, 19,000 people worked in the steel industry one year and only 6,000 people four years later. I know that it is painful, but I ask the hon. Gentlemen to face that pain because the recovery afterwards is a joy to behold. I understand their legitimate concern for their miners and constituents, but it is misplaced. Those miners would be left on an unending diet of subsidies, and it is those subsidies that the report criticises.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that I, too, had a steelworks in my constituency where the work force was reduced from about 16,000 to about 6,000. 1, too, went through the pain. I acknowledge that there is a difference between the histories of the steel and coal industries. If the hon. Gentleman will consider the history of coal rather than talk about market forces, he will realise how wrong he is.

Mr. Brown: I am not sure that the histories of those two great industries are so different. They were both starved of investment in the early part of this century and both were nationalised. One has been nationalised for 40 years and is in a worse state than the one which has been nationalised, thankfully, only for 20 years. There is a clear parallel between them.
I have explained to the House why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East felt it necessary to divide the Committee on the paragraphs that I mentioned. I did not write them; they were presented to me for my approval, as was the rest of the report. It may be out of order to say this, but Back-Bench Members of Select Committees should have a greater opportunity to be involved in drafting reports before they are presented with them for final approval. That would help us when we consider Select Committee proceedings on estimates days and in other debates of this nature.
There is much in the report to commend it to Ministers. The detailed work of all involved provides food for thought which, I am sure, my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Energy will consider carefully.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will understand why I do not follow him down that road. It is fortunate that the majority of the Select Committee Members rarely follow his suggestions.
The House will not be surprised if my speech mainly relates to the effect of the estimates on British Coal. Over many years the Select Committee has highlighted the problems that would face British Coal if the Government took certain actions. Unfortunately, the Government have rarely taken much notice of our reports. If they had taken notice of the 1987 report on coal and the report on electricity, they would not have taken the action that they did.
Three quarters of the money made available in the estimate through the vote is to assist British Coal. It is right and proper that a large slice of the report dwells on that industry. I am sure that the Chairman and members of the Select Committee will agree that it has not always been too impressed with the reliability of the estimates and the value to be placed on them. This year's estimates seem to have been treated with some scepticism for that reason.
Paragraph 5 of the report tells us that the uncertainties for British Coal are enormous. That is true. For many years it seems that we have never managed to get the Government to come clean. From time to time we have used our crystal ball and mostly the Select Committee and the House have been correct. The Government have ignored many of the Committee's recommendations and suggestions and on most occasions the Committee has been proved right.
We are aware that £250 million is a lot of money, but, as the Select Committee recognised, it is being used simply to run down the coal industry, as the Government have planned to do since 1984. The Government are on their way. We must ask, "Do we need a coal mining industry?" If the answer is yes, what size of industry is required? I should have thought that it should be the size required to meet the demand to generate energy and to mine for coal on these shores. It is obvious from the evidence to the Select Committee that that is not the Government's view.
Recently, in evidence to the Select Committee, Sir Peter Gregson made it clear that he expected the contract agreements between British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board to be completed in a few months' time. He said that his Department had been keeping in touch with developments. One can take that as one wants, but these decisions will be based purely and simply on conditions in the marketplace. The Government have had to provide £311 million in the estimates to bring about the loss of a further 15,000 jobs in the mining industry this financial year. The spin-off from the last financial year is about 5,000 jobs. This means, as Sir Peter Gregson told us, that by March next year the estimates will cover some 20,000 miners' jobs.
In 1987, the Select Committee suggested that there might be only 69,000 underground workers in the mining industry by 1990. The Government denied that. It is now obvious that by 1990 that number could fall to 50,000, which means that the mining communities will be in a more traumatic position than they have been in since 1984, when there were about 200,000 men on the colliery books. We have seen the industry run down rapidly. Although in the past there were tragic circumstances in many mining communities, at least the men over 50 were provided with a weekly income to cushion the blow. I have made these points several times in the House and in Committee and I do not apologise for repeating them. The 20,000 miners about whom we are talking in this financial year are not over 50; their average age is 34. They have no weekly income to cushion the blow. There is no alternative employment in the mining communities that these young men can take. There has been no action by the Government since 1984 to provide them with alternatives.
What is the Government's answer? What should these men do? What are the plans for them if 20,000 jobs are lost? It is not sufficient for the Government to argue that the coal industry must stand on its feet and fight the competition. If one accepts that—I never will —the Government have an obligation to the mining communities not to wipe them out for reasons of political dogma and to provide employment to take the place of the staple industries in these communities. There are no signs of that happening.
We hear about the marketplace. Does anyone, from the Secretary of State, to civil servants, to British Coal, believe that British coal can compete with coal from other countries? We hear about all the records and wonderful achievements since 1984. The majority of coal mines are making a working profit—£500 million in the last financial year. Through technology and the hard work of miners, these wonderful achievements have been made, which hon. Members on both sides of the House and Sir Robert Haslam praise. However, we can only produce coal for power stations at a price of £46 to £48 a tonne and it is possible to import coal for between £20 and £28 a tonne, because of subsidies and slave labour in other countries.
British coal will not be able to compete in the short term with coal from abroad. That is why the Select Committee decided that there should be some form of assistance to the coal industry and that the industry should not be left to the marketplace. Vast assistance will be given to the nuclear sector under privatisation, so why throw our industry to the wolves when everyone knows that it cannot compete? That is why some people, including the Government, have pushed hard to extend the ports at Immingham and elsewhere. They know that the negotiations between British Coal and the CEGB will result in contracts for 60 million tonnes of coal—10 million more tonnes of imports, resulting in the loss of miners' jobs.
Do we want to leave this country in a state where it cannot meet the demand of our power stations for coal because the industry has been so run down and we need more imports? Does anyone think that the prices of £20 and £28 a tonne for imported coal will be available then? No. Schoolchildren know that. We saw what happened during the oil crisis. It is crazy to do this. Without using my Yorkshire words, may I say that the Select Committee recognised that. Coal is the natural power we have available. If the Minister is in possession of the facts, will he tell us how many British pits, of those that are left, are really uneconomical? There may be a few, but if "uneconomical" means that they must produce coal at the marketplace figure for imports of £20 to £28 a tonne, every pit in this country must be uneconomical. If that is so, there is no great future for the mining industry, although we shall have serious need of that industry one day.
I have referred to figures in the past, and I will not bother the House with them tonight. It seems that some Conservative Members have no respect for the industry, and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes seems to think that this argument is a big laugh. He should come to my constituency to see whether pit closures are a big laugh. He would see miners' estates, which some members of the Select Committee have seen. Half the estates are boarded up and those properties that are occupied house aged miners and the widows of miners. Shops and schools have been knocked down. The hon. Gentleman should look and decide whether the social consequences of the savage running down of the mining industry are a laughing matter. I assure the House that they are not.
The Select Committee expressed its concern that the Department's research and development expenditure is set to fall in real terms in 1989–90. As the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the Chairman of the Select Committee said earlier, it is essential that the Grimethorpe plant and others like it should be kept operating and that if there is a lack of private funds, the Government do not allow the Grimethorpe plant to close. We talk now about the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide. That plant contributes to research into the greenhouse effect, which is one of this country's worst problems.
Last year, the Committee criticised the expenditure incurred by the Department of Energy when it moved to expensive headquarters on a prime London site. The Government have said that some of the major Departments should move out into the regions, so one cannot make a case for spending a colossal amount of money on a new building in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said. I recall

that the Committee suggested last year that it might be suitable to erect that building in an area such as Pontefract or Abertillery. I support the proposal for Pontefract or Castleford, but unfortunately that has not happened. A report today on the Property Services Agency main estimates showed the vast increase in costs of this new development and there should be some explanation for that.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes left the Chamber immediately after his speech. Unlike him, I believe that the Department of Energy has a continuing part to play, especially in view of our energy prospects. There is also a major part for the Select Committee on Energy to play, and I hope that the Government agree. I also hope that the Minister will give great consideration, when wiping out 20,000 mining jobs, to negotiations. Although nobody on the Government Front Bench appears to be listening, I will say to the Minister that his Department should negotiate with others to see what can be done to introduce alternative employment in the communities that will be wiped out, especially when one considers all the young men who will have no weekly income.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I have followed the debate closely and I understand the strong plea made for the preservation of the Department of Energy. Many hon. Members may not be aware that the Department of Energy was a creation of the party of the present Government. Although the Department was defended in strong and strident terms, I have my doubts about the outcome. As we have said in previous debates, when the present Secretary of State took office, one of his terms of reference was to abolish the Department of Energy. I hope that the defence put up for the Department is listened to, but I have my doubts.
We have heard today about manpower in the coal industry. The House must be informed about how catastrophic the contraction of manpower in the coal industry has been. I recently had an exchange with the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the figures and I was able to point out that, in the past seven or eight years, the coal industry has contracted by 151,000 or 152,000 men. It is the greatest contraction suffered by any industry in so short a period.
We are not talking about pits being closed because of dud technology, because they are using outdated technology, because there are no coal reserves left or because the manpower is aging. A young age group works in the coal industry at present. The average age is about 34 and the older men have left the industry. We do not close pits that have been exhausted; we close those that have great reserves of coal. When it was proposed to close Bilston Glen colliery in my constituency, I pointed out that that pit had hundreds of years of coal left. Even in Monktonhall, which has been mothballed, £30 million, £40 million or £50 million was spent in reaching coal reserves which would last for hundreds of years. In the Midlothian constituency, there is coal lasting for hundreds of years, yet it was decided to close those pits.
I want to give an example of the economic lunacy we practise and of the logic of bedlam. I was at a meeting with British Coal where we were having discussions with Mr. Moses, a director of British Coal. We were talking about


how a British pit could survive in the present economic and competitive climate. The general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers said that British Coal was telling us that a pit must produce coal at so much a gigajoule, although British Coal also said that it could not control the cost per gigajoule because factors in the market place determined that. We were told, for example, about the effects of rises in the value of the pound and about competitive bids from other countries. We asked whether Selby's closure would be considered if it did not live up to the gigajoule cost because of the balance of payments crisis and interest rates. Selby is the so-called jewel in the crown of the coal industry, but Mr. Moses' reply was, "Yes, we would have to consider it."
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy told us about the subsidy that the mining industry is receiving. I am not saying this in a spirit of cirticism, but if we are dealing with the costs of producing energy we must consider other arguments, such as the cost of nuclear power over the years. We must also consider the security of supply—which could be the subject of a valid debate in the House. I can best illustrate my argument with reference to the ridiculous position of the South of Scotland electricity board. The SSEB has gone back on previous understandings and agreements. It had previously said that we needed an indigenous coal industry. Indeed, the present chairman of the SSEB is on record as saying that it would be unthinkable if we did not have an indigenous coal industry in Scotland. He said that we would always need a coal industry in Scotland. However, he has changed his mind about that and is now putting forward similar arguments to those advanced by Conservative Members and is saying that the competitive argument must be considered. The chairman of the SSEB followed that competitive argument, despite the fact that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Energy have been told that something had to be done because otherwise the coal industry in Scotland would contract to nothing.
The chairman of the SSEB went ahead with commercial considerations as the Government told him to do and did a deal for the importation of 1 million tonnes of Chinese coal. What about the argument for security of supply? The chairman of the SSEB said that that coal was cheaper. I am certain that it could not have been cheaper. Indeed, all the evidence and analyses are proving that it could not have been cheaper. Surely one cannot defend supplying our power stations with Chinese coal because by no stretch of the imagination could one say that that would give us security of supply. That is why I said that this policy is the height of lunacy.
I do not want to take up much more time because I want to leave the Minister time to respond to the debate. As a result of this debate, all the information that the Select Committee has given us and all the appraisals, I hope that we will agree that factors other than cost are involved. I hope that the Government will do something about the present uncertainty in the coal industry.
If we are to talk about blatant preference in our energy policy, the coal industry and the coal communities also have a right to express their blatant preference about the production of coal. We can still use the same argument on behalf of coal that was used 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. We have coal in abundance. Therefore, we would be foolish as a country to contract our coal industry to such an extent that we would be dependent on imports of coal.

I hope that we can get that message across in this debate to both the Government and the members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I was glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), my colleague on the Select Committee, referred to vote 3 and the administrative costs of the Department of Energy. I am also pleased that almost a full ministerial team is now present because I believe that I speak for all members of the Select Committee in saying that we should like specific answers to the questions about the administrative costs and the location of the Department that we have raised in successive years in estimates debates.
We have questions about the expenditure incurred on the refurbishment of the offices of the Department of Energy. We are seriously concerned by the Department's apparent lack of consideration of the unanimous view of the Select Committee—again, expressed in two successive years—that the Department should seriously consider moving its staff from central London to other locations. Indeed, so irritated was the Select Committee by the unspecific and cursory response to last year's report that we described it in this year's report as "Civil-Service-speak for doing nothing". The Department is hardly paying even lip service to the Government's professed aim of decentralising staff from London.
The public will find it remarkable that a Department which is now spending £13 million on refurbishing its offices opposite Buckingham palace—at an actual cost that is about 280 per cent. above the original estimate—is not seriously considering whether it is possible to move most of its staff out of central London. I understand that the report of the Select Committee on the Environment today has expressed parallel concerns about the costs involved in refurbishing the offices of the Department of Energy.
Sir Gordon Menzie, the chief executive of the Property Services Agency, has described the £13 million expenditure—and the 280 per cent. increase over the original estimate—as an extremely good deal. If that cost escalation over a two-year period is an extremely good deal, one is tempted to ask what an extremely bad deal would be. If we take Sir Gordon Menzie at his word—and he is arguing that that expenditure is only half the standard commercial cost of office accommodation in central London— I expect that we are meant to believe that we are lucky that the expenditure on the refurbishment of the offices of the Department of Energy and its move to its new location opposite Buckingham palace has not amounted to £26 million. When is the Department seriously to consider moving its staff outside central London?
The public will be astonished that a Department with running costs that we have detailed in our Select Committee report as being over £30,000 per person this year, compared to the Welsh Office expenditure of just under £20,000 per person per year—just over one third less than the expenditure of the Department of Energy—is not seriously examining relocating its staff outside central London. In view of the fatuous explanations that we received both in oral examinations before the Select Committee and in written answers, the people of Scotland


will find it disgraceful that the oil division of the Department of Energy is not located where it belongs—north of the border.
On 26 June 1989, the Minister of State, Department of Energy referred in a written answer to the reason for the location of the oil division's staff in London, stating:
Moreover the division is very much involved in providing advice to Ministers and has day-to-day discussions with the headquarters of the companies in the oil and gas industry, most of whom remain located in London.
That view was confirmed in oral evidence to the Select Committee by Sir Peter Gregson and others. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the causal relationship between the location of the Department of Energy and the location of the headquarters of the oil companies. The Department of Energy is in London because the oil companies are located in London. The simple fact is that the corporate headquarters of the international oil companies are located in London because the Department of Energy is located in London, with its key divisions of petroleum engineering and offshore licensing. The written answer also states:
No specific discussions have been held with the companies on this issue."—[Official Report, 26 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 359.]
That is an interesting admission because less than two weeks ago I had discussions with a major international oil company which currently has its operational divisions in Aberdeen and its corporate headquarters in London. I asked its representatives directly and specifically what their response would be to the movement of the Department's petroleum engineering division and licensing staff north of the border to Scotland. The answer was quite specific: they would review the location of their corporate headquarters in London and would follow the Department's movement of staff.
The Select Committee would like a direct answer to our direct question: when will the Department give proper and serious examination to the question of relocation generally, and to the specific question of relocating the oil division north of the border?
Since the Select Committee made its recommendation on this point last year, we have gathered some interesting allies to our cause. I am thinking in particular of Professor Ross Harper, the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, who has become a recent convert to the idea of moving the whole of the Department of Energy north of the border.
I do not want to be too rough on Professor Harper because in the past few days he has had some hard lessons on the reality of power politics between Edinburgh and London. No doubt some English Members have been following this interesting episode in Scottish politics. Professor Harper was the nominee or choice of the Secretary of State for Scotland for the post of chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland. Unfortunately for Professor Harper's ambitions, he ran into the Prime Minister's favourite son, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was appointed against the advice of the Secretary of State. Professor Harper has been learning some lessons about where the power lies in the Conservative party and where power lies in relations between Edinburgh and London.
It would be worthwhile for Professor Harper to examine why for the past 10 years there has been no move by the Department of Energy to locate oil staff north of the border. The only move in that direction was 15 years ago, when the Offshore Supplies Office was established in Glasgow as a direct result of political pressure from the Scottish National party at the time.
It would also do Professor Harper some good to look at the Select Committee's minutes of 25 January this year. On that day, I was engaged in discussion with the Secretary of State for Energy about a related matter—where it would be proper to locate the office of the Director General of Electricity Supply. I suggested that perhaps that office could be located in Scotland. The Secretary of State replied that that was "an eccentric notion". Perhaps Professor Harper should consider why the Secretary of State for Energy regards it as an eccentric notion to try to supervise the electricity industry of England and Wales from north of the border yet finds it entirely natural and normal that the direction and policy of the oil industry, which is located largely north of the border, should be run from London. That is a clear example of the hypocrisy and the fatuous reasoning that underlies the location decisions of the Department of Energy.
Those in the regions of England and in the nations of Scotland and Wales are of the opinion that it is high time that they ceased to subsidise the south-east of England through the concentration of Civil Service staff in London. That subsidy arises not just from the payment of Civil Service salaries and inner London weighting but from the whirlpool effect on the private sector and on private sector headquarters. This process of subsidy has ceased to be acceptable in the regions of England, and in Scotland and Wales.
The opinion in Scotland is that it is totally unacceptable that the oil divisions of the Department of Energy should continue to be located in London. That is not because we think that it is crucial that the 200 staff of the division should be located north of the border but because we recognise the thousands of jobs that would follow from the major oil companies if the Department made such a decision. It is not acceptable that the oil jobs concentrated in Scotland should be the jobs at the sharp end of the industry—the dirty, dangerous, offshore jobs. We are entitled to the policy jobs and the corporate headquarters employment now located in London which should be in Scotland.
Hon. Members have referred to the question of the continuation of the Department of Energy itself. The oil industry provides a neat illustration to show why it is by no means rational to say that because segments of the energy industry have been privatised we do not need a Department of Energy to overlay a policy. At present, no less than one third of the Department's total staff is employed on oil-related matters. For a number of years the oil industry has been largely in the private sector and it is now almost completely in that sector, yet the Government concede that there is still a need for a large proportion of the Department's staff to be devoted to that vital industry. Whether industry is in the public or the private sector, there remains a public policy requirement and a requirement for an energy strategy—something, of course, which this Government have manifestly failed to provide.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is a great pleasure to be able to participate in this slightly unusual debate. By dint of these rather special circumstances Front Benchers have become Back Benchers and vice versa. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the fairy godmother. Your powers end at 7.26 pm, and we shall all revert to our normal status. Opposition and Government Front Bench spokesmen will not wind up the debate; that will be for the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) to do. It is a particular pleasure for me as a former member of the Select Committee to note that one glass slipper belongs to the hon. Member for Havant and the other to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). The Minister and I, on the other hand, are discussing this very important set of subjects as ordinary persons and with no kind of superior status.
I suppose that the most important question of all—it is the subject on which I propose to concentrate—is whether we need a Department of Energy and a Secretary of State for Energy. The former Member for Scunthorpe reinforced that point. The hon. Gentleman now represents the next-door constituency, whose name I temporarily forget—

Mr. Michael Brown: Let me help the hon. Gentleman. I represented Brig and Scunthorpe from 1979 to 1983 and Brigg and Cleethorpes from 1983 to the present.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that characteristic intervention. At least we can have that right, if nothing else.
The key question is whether we need a Department of Energy, and that is dealt with under vote 3 in the Select Committee's report. It is uppermost in the minds of the Secretary of State and of civil servants in the Department as they contemplate their future, following what I understand is known in Harvard business school jargon as the endgame strategy that the Secretary of State is pursuing. Having privatised the pylons and other appurtenances of the electricity industry, the right hon. Gentleman can dispense with the Department and tell the Tory party conference about it, to rapturous applause. At that point, the right hon. Gentleman will presumably have had some form of promotion or will receive it shortly thereafter. That is known as following the principle, "privatise or perish". I do not think that I am attributing anything to the Secretary of State that he would not be happy to have attributed to him when I say that he must already have written his Tory party conference speech a thousand times in his head. He must have contemplated how wonderful it will be to refer to the notch on his belt once he has got rid of a large electricity supply industry and put it into the private sector. Having got rid of a large nationalised industry—perhaps the biggest—to the private sector, he can then justify the abolition of a Department of State.
This is a matter of interest to me not only as an ex-member of the Select Committee but as an ex-civil servant at the Department of Trade and Industry at a time when that Department still had responsibility for energy. I witnessed from inside the split up of the Department following OPEC's massive oil price rises in July 1973—from $2·50 a barrel to $10 a barrel—when energy was the word on everyone's lips. Superficially at any rate, there is a justification for saying that energy is no longer in crisis.
On a superficial level we may be justified in saying that we do not face that great financial cataclysm of the Financial Times index being as low as 146. It is about 2,000 now and that must warm the cockles of the hearts of some Conservative Members who have a direct interest in that sort of thing.
The western world has survived 13 years of high oil prices, and so there is a belief that we can, to use an apposite phrase, put the energy issue on the back burner. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for Energy takes that view. For him the important thing is promotion and his next Tory party conference speech. However, the rest of the country is concerned about energy. After the legislation privatising the electricity supply industry is enacted, will there still be energy questions which require a separate Department of Energy? We may have said after the great oil price rises in 1973, "Nice one Faisal", but after the abolition of the Department of Energy, will we be happy to say, "Nice one Cecil"? Some of us believe that energy questions remain the same no matter how many nationalised industries fall within the purview of the Department and the Secretary of State for Energy.
It is fair to warn the Secretary of State for Energy that if he is pursuing an endgame strategy and wants to race to his promotion and get rid of the Department of Energy as a notch in his belt, he cannot blame other Secretaries of State such as the Secretary of State for the Environment for muscling into the energy question. He cannot even blame his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—another fairy godmother—if she and her colleagues refer to proposals for coal and carbon taxes at international conferences or in Tory party think-tank papers.
The Secretary of State appears to be asking whether we need a Department of Energy. Is it enough for the Secretary of State to say, as he appears to be saying now, "I will shovel all the shares in the electricity supply industry off the back of the lorry and then I will sell the lorry"? There is something extremely irresponsible about that view unless the Secretary of State can show that energy questions have become much less important than they were.
We are concerned about this because the Secretary of State is in a paradoxical position. He is trying to be the commandant of Colditz and the secretary of the escape committee at the same time. He cannot slide out of his responsibilities at the Department of Energy.
Important questions are covered by other votes that we have discussed tonight. Colossal questions remain in relation to the remainder of the coal industry, although that is a much shrunken industry at the moment. How do we handle the question of the future of the British coal industry? What about the formulation of a policy for the industry? How can we make reasonable estimates for the coal industry? The Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Havant, raised this matter earlier. Why do we go through this whole annual rigmarole of having two sets of estimates for the coal industry? The Department of Energy always underestimates the size of the restructuring grant and the time within which the industry will break even point. Perhaps the Department of Energy believes that that is the right way to provide incentives for the management and the men in the industry.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figure of £311 million represents about 15,000 redundancies? If there are 15,000 redundancies and the restructuring money has gone, will there be a new restructuring grant or will we depend on normal redundancies? The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) seemed to say that he did not care what other countries do to subsidise the products of this country provided that his constituents do not pay a subsidy. That appears to be a return to the old days of the empire when the country depended on the empire for subsidies.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. Reading between the lines in the estimates it seems that we can calculate the number of impending redundancies, but the Minister refuses to confirm those figures in parliamentary questions. If the full story about the real number of possible redundancies for the following year was included in the estimates, that would frighten the life out of us. That is why the Minister does not do that. We need a Department of Energy to deal with such questions.
In addition to the coal industry, the Department of Energy must also consider energy conservation. We do not know the Department's policy on energy conservation. It has reduced expenditure on energy conservation, but it has not said that energy conservation is a less important issue. If we consider the Government's policy according to what is said rather than deeds, it would appear that energy conservation is, in the view of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, the most important issue facing the planet. However, we are proposing to abolish the Department which should have the clear remit to formulate energy conservation policies.
We do not know the Department's policies on energy conservation. What are they? How much expenditure is involved? Where would the Department of Energy fit in with the other Departments and make a contribution, for example, with the Department of Education and Science, the Departments of Health and for Social Security—particularly if we are thinking about the implications of hypothermia? We must bear in mind that we have the worst record with regard to hypothermia in western Europe despite having one of the mildest climates. Those are huge issues which make a case for a separate Department to deal with energy matters.
Another important energy-related matter is the greenhouse effect. That is a top priority issue if we consider the Government's words and not their deeds. The hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) referred to the need for better technology with regard to energy conservation and efficiency, for example, in connection with combined heat and power and the insulation industries.
What about the relationship between privatisation and the nuclear industry rump which would remain in the private sector? We understand that even if the bulk of the electricity supply industry is privatised, some vehicle will have to be found to keep the risk part of the nuclear industry in the public sector by loading it into British Nuclear Fuels plc, which would remain under the wing of the Department of Energy instead of being privatised alongside the power stations. The dodgy part of the industry, the equivalent of the sewerage problem in water privatisation, will be kept in the public sector. The private sector will take the assets and profits and poor old Muggins—the British taxpayer—will continue to bear all

the risks of unexpected rises, which we all know are expected rises, in the costs of nuclear waste disposal, reprocessing and power station decommissioning. The issues related to fairness, handling, monitoring and the estimating of BNFL's costs—as it will have to carry the risks on behalf of the taxpayer—require a separate fully-fledged Department of Energy.
In the end, we are not primarily concerned with how many nationalised industries come under the wing of the Department of Energy. Rather, we are concerned with the size of the energy questions that it must handle. We know that the price of energy has, in general, been falling since February 1986 in real terms. We have had three mild winters in succession and we do not hear weekly stories about pensioners freezing to death in their council flats as we heard during the harder winters of 1985 and 1986. That has tended to make Ministers believe that those issues are less important now.
If the Government try to proceed with the idea that they can get rid of the Department of Energy because they have disposed of its major, remaining nationalised industry, they would be very irresponsible, particularly when they are apparently now still thinking of trying to find a way of unloading the industry on to the private sector by guaranteeing or writing off the risks, debts and difficult parts of the electricity supply industry and keeping them with the taxpayer. That is the application of an old principle of Roman law called "nil prospectus desperandum"—in other words, "Do not do anything that frightens off the shareholders," or, "Let us leave something in it for the stags, otherwise it will not seem a popular privatisation."
If the taxpayer is to continue to carry the can for all the risks involved in the electricity supply industry after privatisation, he must have a proper, fully-fledged Department that can examine the big issues in the industry. Opposition Members do not want the Department to go out in a huge fireworks display involving the employment of expensive advisers and advertisers, and finally see the Secretary of State move on somewhere else, leaving all the problems to his successors.

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I am not sure about the implication of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) about hon. Members speaking as private individuals. For my part, I will work on the assumption that, if I get it wrong, I will still be held to ransom by a wide audience and not only by the wonderful constituents of Worcestershire, South, whom I have the honour to represent.
I congratulate the Select Committee on Energy on yet another thorough report and on the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) introduced it. With good reason, much of the debate has been about the coal industry. The first sentence of paragraph 4 of the report states:
The Vote for assistance to the coal industry takes up over three-quarters of the money which Parliament is asked to vote in support of the Department of Energy.
It has been quite apparent from debates in the House and in Committee that a variety of advice is coming forward to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is right to say that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made an


impassioned and fluent speech. We seem to be throwing bouquets across the Chamber, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I disagreed with most of what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman characterised the position of British Coal as one of profitability, were it not for the fact that debt servicing, redundancy costs and one or two other things mean that so-called operating profits are turned into losses. He would not get away with that kind of statement in the private sector.
The fact is that, over the years, British Coal has accumulated losses of £2·5 billion, and the Government are coming before Parliament for supplementary estimates. I heard the criticisms that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. Next year we may have to ask for further grants to the industry. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked about that point in the context of restructuring grant. British Coal's costs are still above those of international competitors. It is not sensible to ask whether British Coal is currently profitable and whether, with all these flush funds, it will now be able to do all sorts of exotic things that it would not be able to do without them.
The vital question that is being asked by many hon. Members is whether British Coal will be able to compete in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an interesting intervention. The implication behind his views about the future pricing structure of British Coal is that British Coal can compete in the future. That lies at the root of what he said.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister was kind enough to refer to my interpretation of the operation and profitability of British Coal, bearing in mind inflation, high interest rates, changes in the market, oil prices, competition, and so on. He did not really accept my view. I took my information from a letter dated 6 February 1988 from the Secretary of State, which was sent to the Select Committee on Energy on that day for our consideration.

Mr. Spicer: Some people define profitability to encompass the idea of massive money still being spent on the industry. I have gone through the facts. The industry is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. I know that British Coal defines its present performance in terms of making operating profits. Strangely, as a Minister in the Department of Energy responsible for coal, among other things, I continue to find myself, in the context of this profitable industry, returning to the House and, in effect, begging the House for more money for that industry. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask whether the industry can compete in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant said that there is no way that coal can be mined at world prices. To some extent, that brings him into conflict with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. It is certainly not my view. As many hon. Members have stressed, there has been a massive improvement in the efficiency and productivity of the industry. There has been almost a 100 per cent. improvement in productivity in the past four or five years. There is no dispute about that.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool answered his own question about redundancies when he rightly said that there has been almost stable production over that period, with half as many men producing the same amount. That growth in productivity is not only something on which British Coal and those who work for it should be

congratulated but is evidence that, if the process is continued, the industry will stand on its own feet, particularly when we bear in mind two additional factors. The first was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in a recent debate—the present difficulties in the world market. The Government accept that difficulties in the world market, perhaps leading to hardening prices, may exist if the electricity industry goes overboard with imports. There is a small world steam coal market because there are difficulties in the international trading of steam coal. That points to yet another intrinsic advantage—the infrastructure of a home-based coal industry. The Government take the view that, if we can continue the admirable process of improving the efficiency of the British coal industry, it can stand on its own feet and compete against foreigners.
I do not mean to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, as I agree with a lot of what he said. I agree that privatisation of the coal industry cannot guarantee its future, but a policy to privatise the industry is certainly a statement of the Government's faith in the future of the industry. Were the Government not to believe in the future of this industry, they could not properly embark on a policy of trying to sell it to the private sector. Coal is a perfect example of a Government who are backing an industry with massive amounts of money. Hon. Members will have heard Ministers say many times that we are spending £6·5 billion, £2 million every working day, of taxpayers' money on the industry. These are enormous sums of money, but the Government have also shown their faith in the future of the industry and in its ability to stand on its own two feet.
The second theme of this interesting and wide-ranging debate has been energy efficiency, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) referred in particular. The Government agree with him about building regulations, and amending building regulations will shortly be laid. As he said, this is an important part of any energy efficiency programme. I do not have time to go back over many of the detailed points that were made, but I shall make this point. Energy efficiency has been properly debated and no doubt will be debated again when the Electricity Bill returns to the House. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West nods his head, and I am not surprised that he will be raising this matter.
The Electricity Bill can be characterised in terms of an energy efficiency Bill. It is about efficiency in the production of energy. The whole purpose of the radical reform of the generating side of the electricity industry is to produce energy more efficiently. One of the results of that policy, which is a problem for the coal industry, is that in the production of more efficient energy gas-fired systems are coming forward. In their concentration on coal, the Opposition have to contend with the fact that, while Grimethorpe may produce some wonderful answers, the maximum saving of CO2 suggested for the topping cycle at Grimethorpe is between 15 and 20 per cent. In terms of gas over coal-fired stations, the figure would be nearer 40 per cent. We cannot just discard these points when discussing energy efficiency. Nor can we discard the fact that, under a privatised and much freer system, which will exist after the Electricity Bill becomes law, energy efficient production systems will be forthcoming. That needs to be stated, because it seems to have been forgotten that it is critical to our policy.
If that were not accepted by the Opposition—and they have an interest in not accepting that our Bill will produce greater efficiencies in the production of energy—they have only to look at the wording of the Bill. If, for instance, they wish to concentrate on whether energy will be used more efficiently, which is the other side of the coin from the production side, then they will be pleased to see that, for the first time, the regulator will have a statutory duty to promote the more efficient use of energy.

Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spicer: I shall give way in a moment, when I have finished this point. It may be on this that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. I have heard arguments that that duty of the regulator under the Electricity Bill should be further strengthened. We are listening to those arguments. However, I want to make it clear that, for the first time, if Parliament accepts the Electricity Bill, there will be a statutory requirement on a public body to insist on the promotion of the better use of energy.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but that was not the point I was going to make as it will come up next week. The point I shall make has come up before, and we have not yet had a satisfactory answer. The Minister has the simple-minded, free-market belief that all the provisions to free the electricity supply industry are bound to mean more efficient manufacture of electricity, or there will be no new entrants. Therefore, can he tell us whether there will be any new entrants into electricity generation who will not be doing it simply on take-or-pay contracts, negotiated beforehand so that nobody will know at the point of starting construction whether they will be more efficient?

Mr. Spicer: Although perhaps, unlike the hon. Member, I do not have a crystal ball, I can say that the circumstances will be such that new entrants can come in. A particular point is the removal of the control of the wires, or the distribution system, from the generators. At the moment, that is not the situation. The major generator, or monopoly generator, controls the wires. The playing field will be set on an even basis for new entrants. We have been given signs that there will be many new entrants into the system.

Mr. Morgan: On a pay-or-take basis?

Mr. Spicer: The exact basis on which they finally come in, and the contracts that they strike, will be a matter for them.
A running theme in the debate is the location and cost of offices. The lease of the offices of the Department of Energy at Millbank ran out in 1982, so that this problem has been with us for some time. Decisions were made in the early 1980s not to move policy-making parts of the Department out of London. To quote the Energy Committee back to itself, it said in another context:
This is not the right time to move energy policy away from centre stage.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke at length about whether the Department of Energy should be amalgamated with another Department, but that is not a matter for the Department to determine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said. Whether or not it

is, a certain number of policy advisers will need to be based in the capital. For instance, some must be ready to assist in the process of reporting to Parliament—which, as far as I understand it, plans to stay in the capital.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spicer: I thought I might prompt the hon. Gentleman to rise to his feet. I have only three or four minutes and the hon. Gentleman has made his point. The House has heard him, and I must carry on.
For many years, some of the key operational personnel in the Department of Energy have worked outside London. For example, the Offshore Supplies Office works out of Glasgow and Aberdeen, the energy efficiency regional offices are spread throughout the country, as are the electricity meter examining service personnel. We were the first Department to set up a typing pool outside London, in Lytham St. Anne's, and it still exists. However, it has been clear for some time that the major policy-making functions of the Department would need to continue to exist in London.
It is worth stressing that the Department of Energy is a small Department, with only about 1,000 employees. Therefore, the real question is more about how the functions should be located in London. Some 13 options were considered. The major criterion was that the offices needed to be reasonably close to Parliament so that Ministers and officials could get backwards and forwards to Parliament with relative ease. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State agrees with me, but I think that negotiating Parliament square from the top of Victoria street, when on a three-line Whip, will not be as easy as coming down the Embankment from Millbank, but one cannot have everything.
The costs of rent and refurbishment have risen. The latter, as the Committee noted, is mainly a matter for the Property Services Agency, which is part of the Department of the Environment. In the context of what has been said about energy efficiency, I should put it on record that we shall be moving from what must be one of the least energy efficient buildings in London to one that will incorporate state-of-the-art technology for maximising the efficient use of energy, and will be something of a show case.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Spicer: No, I will not give way as I do not have time.
The notional rent paid by the Department to the PSA, another branch of Government, will be high because it will reflect market rents, which are high in that part of London. The actual rent paid by the PSA, which negotiated favourable terms with the developers, is about half the current market costs in that part of London. That means that the offices will be an extremely good deal for the taxpayer, although the policy of charging opportunity costs to Departments will mean that the Department of Energy's vote incorporates the full market rent.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Spicer: I am sorry, but I am not giving way as I must give my hon. Friend the Member for Havant time to reply.
I have been asked what our energy policy is, and I shall give the House the benefit of it. Before I do so, however, I believe that we are entitled to ask the Opposition what


are their energy policies. A policy that relies on conservation, the abolition of nuclear power and a cut in CO2 from coal all in one breath is likely to lead, at the very best, to the statutory wearing of thermal underwear. It certainly would not produce sufficient energy to satisfy our nation's needs.
Our energy strategy is extremely clear and it comprises several simple principles. First, customers should be free to choose the energy they want and should do so from a multiplicity of energy sources—coal, nuclear, renewables, oil and gas. Secondly, energy must be supplied as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Thirdly, to that end, we should ensure that those who work in the industry are well motivated and, as far as possible, shareholders in the privatised companies. Fourthly, we want to make an important distinction between the regulatory bodies and the operators. The regulators of safety, the environment and competition should remain in the public sector. Decisions about investment, capital allocation and management should be put in private hands.
I should have liked to consider the many other interesting and important questions that have been raised, but at this point I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Havant the opportunity to reply.

Sir Ian Lloyd: With the leave of the House, I shall give a few broad conclusions to the debate.
I appreciate the wide-ranging reassurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has given. He has opened up a number of areas for debate and it is a great pity that we do not have a couple of extra hours in which to explore those important questions.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has been one of the most assiduous and persistant gladiators in our Committee for a considerable time. He said that a miner was a very special kind of man. I am sure that the whole House believes that to be true. My hope, as I expressed it once to Joe Gormley, is that the day will dawn, perhaps after Fleischmann and Pons have got it right, when human beings do not have to spend their working lives several thousand feet underground. Until then, however—that goal may be half a century away—the balance between miners' skills and the rewards that society offers must be reasonable, defensible and sustainable. Those words cannot have either a constant meaning or quantum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost)

concentrated with great skill, as he usually does, on energy efficiency. He referred in an anticipatory sense to global warming. We are faced with the problem of global warming and the immense problems that that creates versus global stupidity, global self-interest and global nationalism. My hon. Friend also referred to green politics and said that they were here to stay. I believe that the major parties are more likely to accommodate the green criteria than the Greens are likely to develop coherent economic, defence, social, energy and health policies.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) concentrated on support for the Department of Energy and I am glad to have his support on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) disagreed in his usual courteous way with the Committee's view on the future of the Department of Energy. He said that only one person will decide that particular question and I entirely agree with him. We all know who that one person is. The decision is of such immense importance, however, that the nation is entitled to debate the merits of the issue whatever my right hon. Friend's final judgment may be. I have the greatest confidence in that judgment and I believe that it will be used at the right time in the right way.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a most interesting speech in which he said that the future size of the coal industry must be determined by demand. I believe that there is a great distinction between whether demand is the determinant of the future size of the coal industry or a determinant. Never have greater issues turned on the fundamental difference between those two little words, "the" and "a".
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) also concentrated on the contraction of the coal industry. He rightly referred to the young industry, but he also talked about collieries with hundreds of years of reserves being closed. I have no doubt that that is so, but it always raises questions as to how deep one should mine and at what cost. What are the geological problems? Are the seams faulted? I do not believe that one can dismiss such questions simply because it is desirable for social and many other reasons to maintain particular collieries in particular places.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

ESTIMATES 1989–90

Class VI, Vote 3

Department of Transport

[Relevant document: First Report from the Transport Committee of Session 1988–89 on Air Traffic Control Safety (House of Commons Paper No. 198) and the Third Special Report: Government Observations on the First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 407)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £156,213,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on assistance to shipping; civil aviation; central administration; certain licensing and testing schemes; research and development; road safety and certain other transport services; including civil defence, grants in aid, international subscriptions, and residual expenses associated with the privatisation of transport industries.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that under the resolution of the House on 27 June this estimate is to be considered so far as it relates to civil aviation services.

Mr. David Marshall: Select Committee inquiries are often topical at the time when the Committee agrees to carry out an inquiry. However, when the final report is presented to the House the passage of events and of time have usually made the report of little public interest. That is not the case in relation to the report of the Transport Select Committee on air traffic control safety and runway capacity and the Government's response to it.
Our report is even more topical and of greater public interest now than the subject was some 17 months ago in February 1988 when we agreed to conduct our inquiry. We began our inquiry at a time of increasing public concern about the safety of the skies over the United Kingdom following a number of air misses. It quickly became a time of increasing public annoyance at airport congestion, delays to summer holidays and so on.
Now the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that almost all air travellers experience delays at some time, regardless of the month in which they travel. Those of us who travel weekly, and often wearily, are too well aware of the situation which, sadly, I fear will only get worse in the next five years before it starts to get better, if it ever does. I wrote most of my remarks for tonight's debate to pass my time during an air traffic control delay between Glasgow and London today.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Edinburgh was also affected by similar delays. The 12.40 British Midland flight finally took off at 3.40, three hours late.

Mr. Marshall: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it in time to participate in this debate.
I have already referred to air misses or near misses. Perhaps "air hits" or "near hits" would be more appropriate descriptions. I must stress, however, that Britain has an excellent record of air traffic control safety and that reflects great credit on everyone concerned. I also

stress that our inquiry revealed no concrete evidence to suggest that safety was definitely at risk. However, no one can guarantee 100 per cent. safety, 100 per cent. of the time. With ever-increasing demand, pressures on staff, shortages and general all-round pressures, there is always the possibility of an accident occurring. I certainly hope that one does not happen and, if our report goes some way towards preventing any such accident, it will have been well worth while.
This was the Committee's major inquiry during 1988. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for recommending this estimate for debate today. I am also extremely grateful to the other 10 members, of all parties, of the Select Committee on Transport for the hard work which they put into the compilation of the report and also to the Committee staff for their efforts on our behalf. I should also like to thank our two specialist advisers, Mr. Bill Woodruff, the former group director and controller of National Air Traffic Services, and Mr. David Learmount, the transport editor of Flight International. Thanks are also due to the 11 groups of witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee and the 72 individuals and organisations who submitted written memoranda on the subject to the Committee. Those included my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Our report is published in three volumes and contains 283 pages of evidence, 105 pages of appendices and 47 recommendations from the Committee which were agreed to by all parties represented on the Committee.
No one disputes that transport in Britain is in a mess. Congested airports, overcrowded trains and tubes, motorway tailbacks for miles and traffic jams on all main roads are commonplace. That is hardly surprising in view of almost 10 years of Government neglect in failing to provide adequate infrastructure or to take proper cognisance of the fact that transport policy involves public safety, along with a prolonged ability by almost everyone involved to underestimate the demand for all modes of travel. The present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), inherited this bed of nails.
I have the highest regard for the right hon. Gentleman who is the first Secretary of State for Transport in my 10 years in the House to take a genuine interest in transport. Perhaps these kind words will be the kiss of death for him, but I sincerely hope not. However, although he may care deeply about transport and has developed a good working relationship with the Select Committee, which its members appreciate, I cannot agree with or understand many of his decisions, or non-decisions, on transport policies.
The Secretary of State is still not making the right decisions about the nation's transportation needs, or making them fast enough, as our report will show. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be present to participate in this debate. Unfortunately, he is not here. I understand that the Minister for Roads and Traffic will participate. However, while he will do his best, it will still be only second best, which is typical of the Government's attitude to transport.
Unfortunately, this debate is not about all aspects of transport, but only about the narrow although vital matter of air traffic control safety. However, there is enough evidence in the report to bear out what I have said. No doubt many hon. Members from both sides of the House will pick up many points from the report, as well as


making specific remarks about their own localities. I shall concentrate on a few main general points of interest as well as those of interest in Scotland.
In his press release of 15 June, announcing the Government's response to the report, the Secretary of State said that several of the Committee's recommendations corresponded to measures that had already been implemented during the past year. I should like to think that the Committee's deliberations had provided a useful forum for discussion of the issues and been of some use in guiding the Department and the Civil Aviation Authority in their response to the problems of air traffic control as they developed. That is perhaps one of the best and most important roles performed by Select Committees.
The Secretary of State went on to say that he and the Civil Aviation Authority broadly accepted the analysis and agreed with the majority of the Committee's recommendations. I welcome that statement and compliment the Secretary of State on his actions. However, the recommendations not accepted, or continued for further consideration, are those which, perhaps, give greatest cause for concern.
In some of his responses, the Secretary of State appears to accept the 1985 White Paper on airports policy as the be-all and end-all of aviation policy. But it is now four years or more out of date. Since then, the aviation world has moved ahead at a rate that no one forecast or anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman should immediately commission a review and an update of the 1985 White Paper. A 1990 White Paper would come to different conclusions.
Our report contains bad news and good news. The bad news relates to the history of air traffic control since 1975. The good news involves what is being done, and will be done, to deal with the issue, even if those actions are being taken five years or more too late. Sadly, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which produced a report on national air traffic services in 1983, noted that the CAA had sought a 15 per cent. cut in manpower between the years 1975 and 1977, and that this had been achieved, although over a longer period. After 1982, there was increased pressure from the Department and the CAA to find further ways of saving manpower and the then five-year corporate plan contained a target reduction in staff of 7·4 per cent.
It seemed to us that little or no account was taken over the years of the possible need for additional and increasing commitments or of the certainty of increasing traffic. In addition, account was not taken of the need for more air traffic control staff to deal with the planning of new systems and developments or of the need to allow for the considerable time that elapses between recruitment and the operational availability of air traffic controllers. The Civil Aviation Authority, under pressure from the Department, continued to seek ways of cutting staff levels and, it appeared to us, adopted recruiting targets on the basis of over-optimistic assumptions about what was practical.
The chairman of the CAA admitted that, with the benefit of hindsight,
reductions were carried too far
and that
the whole thrust of the MMC investigation as late as 1983 was down that road.
The Institution of Professional Civil Servants noted that only three years ago, in 1986, the Civil Aviation Authority stated that it had a surplus of at least 135 air traffic

controllers and that early retirement had been proposed to reduce the surplus. Not surprisingly, that led the IPCS to express a lack of confidence in the CAA and its forecasting abilities. With such a history of lack of foresight and undue pressure for reductions in staff levels, it is hardly surprising that there is now a serious shortage of air traffic controllers in this country.
Happily, the Civil Aviation Authority has begun to put its house in order. I believe that the chairman of the CAA, Christopher Tugendhat, is determined to make great improvements. However, that will take time and it will be at least five or six years before everything is completed. I am grateful to him for sending me a copy of his news release of 5 July, detailing 24 points regarding his £600 million investment programme for the next 10 years.
Recommendations 10 and 26 in our report refer to the need for crucial decisions to be made about future runway capacity, especially in the south-east, and add that, despite everything, a second runway should be provided at Gatwick. I accept that there is unlikely to be a second runway at Gatwick, but there should be. The world's airlines estimate that demand for air travel will grow two and a half times between 1989 and 2005. It does not take a genius to realise that more than a fair share of that increase will take place in the south-east of England or to forecast that Heathrow, Gatwick, and even Stansted, will have reached saturation long before the year 2000.
If there is to be no second runway at Gatwick—and it is almost 1990—and as it takes, on average, 12 years from the date of decision to complete a new runway, there will be no new runway in the south-east of England to meet the demand by the year 2000 unless someone somewhere gets his finger out now. I have been told that the cost to airlines of a one-minute delay for a 757 aircraft is £150 and for a 747 aircraft it is £900. If those figures are correct, they are staggering and who knows what the annual cost could be, based on the delays that occur?
We are only too well aware of the problems of congestion and of the massive additional costs that it imposes on airlines, business and industry. It causes extreme annoyance, upset and even heartbreak to passengers. We really need national, European and international aviation policies that will meet the needs of passengers and of safety, not those of vested interests. Speaking of vested interests, the British Airports Authority has been criticised by some Conservative Members on the Committee for acting as a private monopoly and for being more concerned with selling franchises in airports and with increasing profits at the expense of airport users than with furthering the wider interests of British aviation. Perhaps a return to the public sector or the breaking up of its monopoly might find all-party agreement.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Surely one of the reasons why the British Airports Authority has successfully branched out into spheres of activity other than providing services for air travellers is that it operates on a price control of RPI minus 1 per cent. Perhaps we should re-examine that formula; if we give the authority more scope for making more money out of providing the services that it should provide, on which it lost £15 million last year, while making a total profit of £198 million overall it might switch its attention to providing the sort of services that we want it to provide.

Mr. Marshall: The profits just announced by the BAA seem to show general agreement with the points I have made about it. It certainly operates different charging policies at different airports. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to say something in support of the BAA later on.
An example of BAA's possible inadequacy relates to new runways and traffic forecasts. Its forecast for growth in traffic is based on an annual average growth rate of 4·5 per cent. for passengers and 2 per cent. for air transport movements. The figures are necessarily speculative, but the Civil Aviation Authority puts the annual growth rate for air transport movements at 2·5 per cent. Although there would appear to be little difference between the two bodies' estimates, the CAA figures clearly show the need for a new runway at the turn of the century. The BAA places undue reliance on the expectation that passengers will travel on larger aircraft. That is the point that it put to us, but the figures do not bear it out.
Over the past 10 years the average number of passengers per aircraft at Heathrow has increased by only 11 per cent., whereas passenger growth in the same period has been 34 per cent. The BAA appears to think that London's existing airports will be able to cope until after the turn of the century, but it is alone in that view, and alone in assuming that a new runway can be conceived, planned and built in less than 10 years.
We heard none of the necessary urgency from Sir Norman Payne or his officials when they appeared before us. I find it hard to understand their attitude unless it is entirely influenced by their desire to develop Stansted more quickly than originally envisaged.
The Secretary of State should go all out to encourage much greater use of regional airports such as Birmingham and Glasgow for international and intercontinental flights. That would help to reduce some of the pressure on the south-east, as recommendation 23 of the report suggests——

Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marshall: I shall give way in a moment; I think that my hon. Friend is prejudging what I am about to say.
The decision not to grant gateway status to Glasgow airport and allow transatlantic and intercontinental flights from Abbotsinch is disgraceful. Almost everyone in Scotland wants gateway status for Glasgow and even, perhaps, for Edinburgh. I shall mention only the CBI, the Glasgow chamber of commerce, Glasgow district council——

Mr. Foulkes: rose——

Mr. Marshall: I shall give way in a minute. Many more jobs could be created if Glasgow were given gateway status. A number of British, European and American airlines would operate new services and Glasgow would become a minihub providing better services to more destinations for the people of Scotland. I hope that that would also end the scandalous surcharges that holiday companies extort from tourists who have to travel to the south and go on holiday.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is talking a load of rubbish. First, he mixed up transatlantic flights and European holiday flights. No one denies that Glasgow airport should have more direct flights to Europe and

more European holiday flights, but it should not take away the transatlantic flights which sustain Prestwick airport. That would be the death knell of Prestwick, and Glasgow does not have the runway capacity or terminal and ground facilities to deal with such traffic.
My hon. Friend is wrong to say that opinion in Scotland supports Glasgow airport's bid for transatlantic status. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish council of the Labour party, with which my hon. Friend is not unconnected, have made it clear, as have many other bodies, including district councils, Strathclyde regional council and others, that they want Prestwick to remain as Scotland's transatlantic gateway, prospering in association with Glasgow airport in a joint role. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that and will think again.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's speech, but he has not got it right. He has allowed his blinkers to conceal the right path from him. Apart from Ayrshire Members of all parties and the Secretary of State for Scotland, very few people in Scotland believe that Glasgow, and perhaps even Edinburgh, should not have gateway status.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not know whether my hon. Friend realises that Sir Norman Payne convened a meeting which 25 Scottish Members of all four parties representing Scotland attended. No one spoke against Prestwick having sole transatlantic status; all speeches were in favour. That proves my hon. Friend entirely wrong.
Mr. Marshall: I, in turn, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the poll of all 72 Scottish Members carried out recently by the Daily Record. It gave the opposite point of view, and it was the first time Members had been asked to state whether they were in favour of gateway status for Glasgow airport. Our hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) attended the meeting with the BAA a fortnight ago, when we were told that the new generation of aircraft would have no difficulty flying from Glasgow to the west coast of the United States. It is not true that Glasgow is unsuitable for transatlantic flights: it is perfectly suitable.
Glasgow will never be a hub to rival Heathrow, Gatwick or even Manchester, but if it does not get gateway status Manchester will become Scotland's gateway airport. All the additional expense of the road and rail links mooted for Prestwick, which are admirable for the infrastructure for the west of Scotland, will not generate enough additional passengers ever to make Prestwick a hub. To give Glasgow gateway status would not mean the death of Prestwick, as my hon. Friend suggests. Prestwick is an excellent airport with excellent facilities and staff and it will always have a future. About 4,500 jobs are located there—with British Aerospace, the Ministry of Defence and Caledonian Air Motive, and new developments are announced every week. About 250 people are employed—

Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend not aware that four major announcements have been made—one by the CAA, one by British Aerospace, a third by Caledonian Air Motive and the last by TNT (UK) Ltd? All four decisions follow the wise decision by the Secretary of State for Transport—I never thought I would say that—to maintain Prestwick's sole transatlantic status. The decisions follow


that decision and depend on it to a large extent. If the Secretary of State had taken my hon. Friend's advice, these welcome decisions might not have been taken.

Mr. Marshall: I am touched by the unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport. We are considering what is in the best interests of Scotland's aviation future, and that has to be gateway status for Glasgow. I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will reconsider his decision and in the fullness of time will change his mind. At the end of the day it is Glasgow's future that matters and the decision is a bad one for Scotland's future in transport.
On another Scottish issue, the Civil Aviation Authority has an initiative to pinpoint flight delays and airline punctuality at selected British airports and publish the figures monthly. Six airports—Birmingham, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Manchester and Stansted—have been chosen, but not a single Scottish airport is on the list. Why is that, bearing in mind that Anglo-Scottish shuttle flights are arguably the busiest domestic services in the United Kingdom? It is still not too late to include Scotland in this initiative and the Secretary of State or the chairman of the CAA should do so as soon as possible.
I am pleased to see that in the response to recommendation (xxxii) National Air Traffic Services is studying the feasibility of a new east coast airway between Newcastle and Clacton. That is urgently needed to relieve some of the pressure on the overcrowded Daventry airway. I should like to see a decrease in the amount of air space reserved exclusively for military use. I would welcome an early announcement on recommendation (xxxviii). That recommendation states that a location for the new London air traffic control centre should be decided upon "without further delay" if it is to be operational by 1996. That is crucial to the whole strategy for the future. When and where is it to be built? Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about that.
I shall now turn to a major recommendation, at least in the areas of organisation and administration. It is the recommendation that the Government examine the possibility of splitting the CAA into two separate self-standing organisations. The CAA would retain all its regulatory functions while NATS would be established as a separate public sector body. I thought that the Department would reject that recommendation out of hand. The House can imagine my surprise at reading the Government's response which states:
This is an important recommendation which requires thorough consideration. The Government will respond in due course.
Unfortunately, I do not think that that shows a willingness to accept our recommendation. I suspect that it is a hint that the Government have the CAA on their list of targets for privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter.
On Eurocontrol the Government's response to recommendation (xxxi) is encouraging. I hope that they and the CAA will pursue the matter with the utmost vigour as they say they will. A large part of the problem is in Europe which is comparable in size and population with the United States of America where the Federal Aviation Authority standardises equipment and procedures for the whole of the United States. We need and must eventually

achieve a similar set-up in Europe. We need a central European system of air traffic control covering all 22 European countries and not just the EC countries. Eurocontrol must become a reality whether one or two of our leaders like it or not.
If our Select Committee inquiry and report have gone even a little way towards making the skies above our country a bit safer, they will have been well worth while.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and his Committee on their most excellent first report on air traffic control safety. The Committee interviewed an impressive list of experts in the field and the numerous memoranda submitted to the Committee make interesting reading.
We address this subject at a time when a great deal is happening in air transport. We are seeing rapid technological and commercial change. The legal and institutional frameworks are being transformed and the European Community is in the process of getting a single European market in air transport as in other sectors. We have recently had the first measure of liberalisation in Europe which enables small aircraft to fly between regional airports. Another measure is due in 1990. If the internal market in air transport is to be achieved by the target date of 1 January 1993 there must be substantial advance in the next stage of liberalisation that we will see in June 1990. It is within the context of those changes that we are addressing the recommendations of the Committee.
I suggest that the measures that we want adopted in the next stage of liberalisation should include, first, the freedom for airlines to set their own fares, subject only to safeguards against anti-competitive practices. Secondly, we need the opening of all routes between member states and, thirdly, the removal of capacity constraints on services between member states. Fourthly, existing limits on multiple designation should be removed and, fifthly, we need further liberalisation of passenger services. Sixthly, we need the full liberalisation of all cargo services. Seventhly, we want to see endorsed the effectiveness of competition rules by a review of block exemption regulations. Lastly, we must have equality of opportunity between member states, and that must be safeguarded by uniform criteria throughout the Community for route licensing and effective control of state aid to airlines.
Within a liberalised Europe we must have a level playing field, and at the moment too many of our partners in Europe profess to think towards liberalisation while practising state control and assistance against countries such as the United Kingdom where domestic liberalisation has already occurred to a large extent and where the industry is based on free enterprise operating in a free market.
I should like to highlight some of the changes which are currently seen in civil aviation and which are important to bear in mind when considering these recommendations. First, there is strong pressure on airlines, and on those companies and organisations that provide services for airlines, to increase efficiency and to lower costs. We are beginning to see new route planning, operational methods and market domination through the hubs. We are also beginning to see the concentration of market power in the hands of a few very large carriers. That is happening in the


United States of America where the six biggest carriers operate more than 50 per cent. of the services. That could happen in Europe through mergers and acquisitions, some of which cross frontiers. We have seen the recent British Airways arrangements with Sabena and perhaps the Select Committee on Transport would like to address that issue next.
We are beginning to see increasing control of feeder operations by the major carriers and increased air space and airport congestion and additional problems about the availability of slots at airports. The circumstances in which the Select Committee looks at those difficulties are trying and the problems are difficult to resolve.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that the matters that he has listed are the result of deregulation, especially in America? Is that not what capitalism is about? What does he object to if on the one hand he says he wants further liberalisation while on the other hand he says that if this happens the largest and strongest will take the best of the market? I am not quite clear about that.

Mr. Colvin: It is difficult to explain, but there is a fundamental difference between liberalisation and total deregulation. In the United States the industry was totally deregulated and that created a free-for-all. One of the experts on the subject is Mr. Michael Levine who is well known to those with an interest in civil aviation. He dreamed up the whole concept of deregulation in the United States and Mr. Alfred Kahn administered it on behalf of President Carter when he was elected. It has not worked out as anticipated by the gurus who dreamed it up. If we had asked them, way back, to use their crystal ball, they would never have envisaged that the industry in the United States would have its present structure.
We want to learn from the American mistakes. I do not believe that Europe should go for a total free-for-all. That is why I carefully used the word "liberalisation" rather than total deregulation. The United Kingdom is in a much stronger position, because of the strength of its domestic carriers, to capitalise on the liberalisation that we hope will take place in Europe. Plenty of our entrepreneurs are beginning to jump the hurdles that are likely to be placed in their way in Europe. Air Europe is a very good example. Majority shareholdings are being taken in companies that are being set up in member countries. The national frontiers that we hope will come down in 1992 are already being jumped by some airliners from a legal point of view. That is thoroughly healthy.
The other problem is the rapid expansion of the industry. The number of passengers using British airports by the year 2005, which is only 15 years away, is expected to double to 123 million. Most of those passengers will use airports in the south-east.
The Committee has carried out its inquiry at a time when there is growing anger over delays at airports and occasional anxiety over safety. However, I stress what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Shettleston, has just said: travelling by air is still the safest way of travelling and that it is getting safer every year. I have just been told that delays at Heathrow are now up to two hours and that pilots and air traffic control officers are

beginning to have rows. The relations between air traffic control officers and the pilots flying the aircraft are normally extremely good, but now the tension is mounting. That bodes ill for safety. When people become edgy and irritable, the safety factor has to be watched extremely carefully.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that the national air traffic control system is coping with the problem at Heathrow. Where is the leadership and the good line management that we need? What about the working practices of air traffic control officers? It is a man management problem at Heathrow as much as any other. I believe that it must be resolved.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many cases the delays are the result of the universal application of flow control, which has detracted from air safety, although the whole purpose of introducing flow control was to increase safety?

Mr. Colvin: I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will expand on that point later in the debate, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am delighted that in its recommendations the Committee stressed the safety factor. I am also pleased that the Committee dealt first with people when addressing the problem of air traffic control. Air traffic control is an extremely difficult task. People of the highest calibre are required. Those of us who have seen air traffic controllers at work appreciate the stress under which they are put. They must be fully trained, rewarded properly for the task that they do and encouraged to do better. I am glad that the Civil Aviation Authority is to recruit an additional 140 officers to help to put right some of their past mistakes. Pay, promotion prospects and working conditions are all factors that are of the greatest importance if we are to encourage the right sort of people into air traffic control. I am very glad that retired air traffic controllers have been recruited to train the new ones. That is a move in the right direction.
Air traffic controllers have to shoulder terrific responsibilities. If we put in place the right pay structure, working structure and conditions of employment to attract the right people there ought then to be a no strike agreement. I know it will be pointed out that the only country that has a no strike agreement with air traffic controllers is Greece, yet that is the one country where the air traffic controllers are constantly on strike, so a no strike agreement is said to be no good. The fact is that they do not go on strike; they just report sick. The right people who will become responsible air traffic controllers have to be the sort of people who serve in the armed forces and the police. They do not expect to have to go on strike. That is why the pay and working conditions of air traffic controllers must be right.
I am very pleased that the Committee recommended that there should be a second runway at Gatwick. I point out, however, that a second runway at Gatwick already exists, although for most of the time it is used as a taxiway. It would be possible for the British Airports Authority to make a new taxiway at Gatwick. The authority already owns sufficient land to make room for it. The planning consent at Gatwick includes a section 52 agreement under which no second runway should be built for another 40 years or so. However, the runway is already there. All that


is necessary is a lengthening of that runway. Then it could be used for one of the purposes for which it was originally intended. There would still be room elsewhere at the airport to taxi the aircraft. The two runways could be used together—one for take-offs and the other for landings without aircraft interfering with one another. It is high time that those hon. Members with constituencies around Gatwick became a little less Luddite in their attitude to a very important asset.
I am pleased about the Committee's recommendation concerning military airports. That recommendation is particularly important for business aviation. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is in the Chamber. One possibility is that business aviation that at present uses Heathrow should use Northolt. That could work quite well. The runway would need to be realigned, but I am told by executive and business travellers that it would be easy for Northolt passengers to interline with scheduled flights at Heathrow.
I am pleased about the recommendation concerning Bournemouth and Southampton airports, both of which are close to my constituency. A deal between the two airports—for Bournemouth to handle all charter traffic and for Southampton to handle all the scheduled traffic—would mean that those two regional airports could carve up the business between them instead of competing head on and doing each other commercial damage.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I am sure that there are no Luddites in the Bournemouth and Southampton areas, could the hon. Gentleman explain what he expects Luddites such as the Foreign Secretary to do in relation to Gatwick? This is a serious problem. What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Members of Parliament should do in relation to Gatwick?

Mr. Colvin: Legislation would be needed for a second runway at Gatwick if a completely new runway had to he built. That is why I say that powerful forces within Government are working against that. I take the view that some of them ought to he a little more public spirited. That is what I mean by being Luddite.
As to the key to a better air traffic control system in Europe, I believe that the United Kingdom joined Eurocontrol in 1973. I remember being lobbied as far back as 1975 by air traffic control officers who wanted the United Kingdom to be a full member, not just an associate member, of Eurocontrol. At that time most of the lobby was concerned about pay and working conditions and had very little to do with air traffic control. Now the circumstances have completely changed and there is no doubt that all the people who clamour for a pan-European air traffic control system must have in mind Eurocontrol as the basis for that system.
In May 1988 the European Parliament Transport Committee passed a resolution that Eurocontrol be expanded. It recognised the need for an integrated system of air traffic control in western European air space. It felt that the European Parliament had taken the view that the responsibility for this should be conferred on an enlarged Eurocontrol as that would maximise air transport safety, achieve better utilisation of air space and result in speedier handling of traffic, the reduction of air fares, greater passenger convenience, fewer diversions, sounder coordination of military and civil air transport and a host of

other things. A year ago, when the European Parliament debated this important issue, it reached precisely the same conclusions as the Select Committee.
I am glad that the Select Committee recommended that the LATCC II site should go ahead with all possible haste. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I should like to know where the LATCC II site is. In their response to the Committee the Government said that the Department of Transport was working on an initial project investment appraisal, yet I do not believe that a planning application for any site has been submitted.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I understand that a shortlist is being considered, and one site is expected to be selected shortly.

Mr. Colvin: That is the prepared answer, for what it is worth.
We have heard some mention of the £600 million that the Civil Aviation Authority has already committed to air traffic control. I am glad to hear that the chairman of the CAA, Christopher Tugendhat, is well on the way to spending that £600 million on his investment programme and other matters. Last year he spent £50 million on a new chain of advanced en route radars, and £10 million on re-equipment at Heathrow. That is all good stuff, but it is chicken feed compared with the £6 billion that the Government have committed to the road system, no doubt thanks to the machinations of the Minister for Roads and Traffic who will reply to the debate. Why can he not do as well for civil aviation? Perhaps the Prime Minister should make him aviation Minister and civil aviation would get more funding. At the moment civil aviation is treated as a poor relation in transport terms. The railways are getting almost as much money as the road system, yet civil aviation has to make do with a paltry £600 million.

Mr. Peter Snape: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he really should not talk such nonsense. We keep repeating, in the hope that some Conservative Members will absorb it, that the capital investment in British Rail is self-generated. Essential and necessary services, some of which no doubt run through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, receive less than £500 million a year.

Mr. Colvin: We are digressing from air traffic control, but it is a fact that the Government are investing 10 times more in the road system than in air transport.
If a lot more has to be spent, where will the money come from? I have mentioned the taxpayer, via the Department of Transport. Surely if we accelerate the programme of investment and spend more money within Europe, Europe itself could be a source of funding. European money is available now for work on infrastructure. If this is not infrastructure, I do not know what is.
There is also the traveller. Ultimately, following liberalisation, fares within Europe should come down. If that happens, there should be some scope for including further costs on tickets to repay some of the investment in air traffic control. En route charges to airlines could go up to pay for some of the improvements. At present the BAA is tied to the RPI minus 1 per cent. formula. If that were re-examined, there might be some scope for encouraging the BAA to spend more on its investment on airline services including airport ATC rather than on other commercial activities.
The importance of good communications for people and goods was recognised by the Romans 2,000 years ago. They gave extremely high priority to their network of roads. Their roads ran straight and true, sometimes a lot straighter than European air routes today which, because of national airspace boundaries and zones closed for military use, often include zigzags instead of straight lines. Surely European Governments have a responsibility to straighten their routes and integrate their services. Only by burying national chauvinism and sharing our sovereignty will we be able to provide the air traffic control services that the travelling public needs and wants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Romans had many useful forms of traffic planning. They had compulsory purchase which they enforced with the legions, they had centralised planning and they controlled the means by which it was applied, and they made absolutely sure that it fulfilled the purposes for which it was designed—to get their armies from one point of the empire to another as quickly as possible. That is the precise opposite of the Government's attitude to airport planning and air traffic safety.
The Transport Select Committee took a great deal of interesting and worrying evidence from many people who have to deal with the day-to-day chaos in air traffic control. The points they raised were echoed, in careful but clear terms, in the Select Committee report. The Select Committee asked for measures that are needed urgently to deal with a situation that is rapidly becoming intolerable.
Air traffic planning now needs radical and urgent responses. It cannot be dealt with by a minor touch on the tiller or an arrangement with one of the many split parts of Government planning that seem to be all we are being offered. It is important to remind the House of what the Select Committee report said about safety:
We recommend that the Government provide, without delay, whatever support and financial assistance is needed. The crisis of airspace capacity is unlikely fully to be solved by the present patching-up process and we strongly recommend that, whatever short-term improvements may take place, the provision of LATCC II should proceed with all speed".
The Select Committee then asked for extra money and made it clear that only the Government could take those important and clear decisions.
What was the Government's response? It was:
Investment in air traffic control services is financed … by airspace users through the charging system without Government subsidy. This ensures that resources are deployed efficiently. The Government will authorise borrowing … to modernise and expand the facilities required to provide air traffic services, provided this investment shows the prospect of an adequate economic return.
The Government are prepared to hand over responsibility for this vital form of transport to anyone who can justify the rate of return. It does not matter whether that calculation includes passengers or whether it shows the cost to British industry of constant delays. The Government believe that the only defining and deciding factor must be the market place, which has proved manifestly inept and incompetent. The Government are in the most unholy mess on traffic control. The decisions that

must be taken tend to boil down—the industry loves using initials—to the three Ps, people, planes and planning, none of which the Department of Transport is providing.
The Select Committee was asked about leadership. There will continue to be insufficient male and female air traffic controllers if they are not provided with proper pay and support services. Time after time we were told that they were working under such stress that they were finding it increasingly difficult to maintain existing services. Any hon. Member who uses internal services or travels abroad from Britain knows that there are constant problems with slots and constant delays, and that the pressure being put on air traffic controllers is rapidly becoming intolerable for them and, ultimately, for the travelling public because of sheer stress.
The reality is that we are not coping with today's problems, but tomorrow they will be infinitely worse. The Government's planning of air traffic control seems to be the same as their planning of traffic on the Embankment. When it ceases to move altogether, they will begin to take a mild interest, but until that happens their sole solution will be to say, "We know that you cannot move on the motorways, so we shall simply make them wider", which will make it more difficult for people to get anywhere.
The problem is becoming increasingly worrying for people in the industry. We know that there is no overall airport planning. The Committee agreed that it is essential that another runway at Gatwick is built, yet the Government show no understanding of that and have not said how they will solve problems in the south-east. The Government appear to assume that runways cannot be built in the south-east, which is manifestly a policy of despair and abandon.
Some of the Government's responses to the Committee's recommendations, such as on Eurocontrol and flow control, were smug to the point of astonishment. Anyone who has watched the flow system in operation knows that at best it is simply a means of slowing down and managing existing slots. The system is not a solution to the problem; it simply seeks to manage an intolerable situation.
As the Committee noted, Eurocontrol has had a chequered history. In non-parliamentary language, that means that it is insufficiently controlled, that it does not have political decision-making powers behind it, that it does not have enough trained staff, that it does not have the right equipment and that it is not doing an efficient job. I am complaining not only about Maastricht but also about the many other elements that make up Eurocontrol.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Lady explain what she thinks Eurocontrol should do? Why does she think that its equipment is inadequate? It is much better than the equipment available at LATCC.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Eurocontrol has never pretended that it is capable of handling all the traffic that will be controlled by the Eurocontrol unit. It is capable of doing a small job in conjunction with existing air traffic controllers, which it has always done in a slightly uneven fashion. The Government say that they will put much pressure on the unit to ensure that it works better in the future. Is there any reason why the Government have not pressed for Eurocontrol to be built in Britain, given the amount of money that will be needed to construct a new air traffic control centre here? I cannot understand why it


should be built anywhere else, but we have not been given a response about the inadequacy of Eurocontrol to deal with the current problem.
When the Department of Transport was asked about the difficulty of dividing traffic in the south-east and sorting out the problems of domestic flights compared with international flights and charter traffic, it said that it was awaiting
the CAA's advice on the distribution of air traffic between the London area airports
and that it noted the Committee's view. That is not an acceptable answer. There is not time to wait for a response that says, "If we are lucky, by the time the system has ceased to operate we should have staggered as far as 2005. By then we might need a new runway in the London area, so it might be a good idea to consider the CAA's formal advice before reaching decisions." Those decisions should have been taken a long time ago, but they were not and now the Government are paying for the pressure that they put on air traffic controllers, for the fact that they were not prepared radically to change their terms and conditions and, above all, for the fact that they were not prepared to find some form of retraining. We must have more air traffic controllers, and their equipment must be much more modern. It is no good saying that in 10 years' time we should have a system up and running. The planes stacking up in our airways today, tomorrow and next week will still be there in 10 years' time, but there will be many more of them.
We should like better use to be made of regional airports, but no one pretends for a moment that they will deal with the increasing problems of an air traffic control system that has little room to expand. Closer co-operation between the RAF and civilian controllers might give a little flexibility to the system.
The Government have created a monster, but they do not know what to do with it. Indeed, they are fleeing about two or three years behind the monster, which is galloping into the distance. Soon passengers will at least begin to sense that there is a safety problem. They will not sense it when they are sitting in planes and becoming more and more irritated by the time that it takes to find a take-off slot, but increasingly they will perceive the Government's refusal to train, to pay for that training, to expand planning for airports, to build a new runway and to do something radical about expanding services from the south-east, which will contribute to a dangerous and explosive situation. It may not happen today or next week, but happen it will.
The public will not accept the Government saying, "Thank you for producing a nice report, which we enjoyed reading. We have taken into account evidence from ATCs, the BAA and the CAA. With any luck, they might sort out the problem between them while they are making money." The Government know that that will not do. It is slightly worrying that their attitude is demonstrated by an eloquent, responsible, charming Under-Secretary of State —[Interruption.]—a man who is normally eloquent—but not the man who has responsibility for taking the decisions. The Secretary of State should be here, not least as a matter of courtesy to the Select Committee on Transport, which understands the urgency of this problem.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: It is timely that we should hold this debate in early July, just as we begin to reach the peak period for air traffic delays. It has always seemed to me, as we have been confronted by news of these delays over the past few years, that they have started to occur partly because of the inadequate air traffic control system—in no way do I equate that with an unsafe air traffic control system—and partly because of insufficient runway capacity.
The Civil Aviation Authority seems belatedly to have recognised the need for more air traffic controllers. We are told that recruitment is increasing, which, of course, is satisfactory. I am bound to remind the House, however, that in 1986 the same Civil Aviation Authority was telling us that there was a surplus of air traffic controllers. I cannot escape the conclusion that there have been elements of poor planning, poor management and poor forecasting which we must lay at the door of the CAA. To be fair, it is probable that inadequate funds have been made available for investment in that aspect of air traffic control. Although I criticise the CAA for its defects, I have a feeling that Government policy towards investment in this vital sphere has not always been what it could be.
There is a need swiftly to minimise the delays that upset our constituents. How realistic is it to expect that that is likely to happen? In my opinion, it is not realistic, although, I am pleased to say, air traffic should improve progressively as more air traffic controllers are taken on stream, more investment in sophisticated equipment becomes available and more liaison with the air traffic control system of Europe becomes the order of the day. I was particularly pleased to note a news item last week that we are—to be fair, on the British Government's initiative—moving more sharply in that direction than before.
I welcome the CAA's decision to publish the punctuality tables. I am informed that that is certainly not the view held by many airlines, whether scheduled services or charter airlines. The publication of the punctuality statistics will give publicity to a situation that has been kept under wraps. If it does what I predict it will do, which is to make the public aware of those airlines that are habitually unpunctual and that there is unpunctuality across the board, whether among charter airlines or scheduled airlines, I hope that pressure will be brought to bear by the public and the airlines on the CAA if it can be proved that a sizeable number of the delays are caused by inadequacies in the air traffic control system. This may mean that the whole thing moves in a circular direction and that the CAA, having decided to publish these punctuality tables for its good reasons, winds up discovering that the resulting criticism comes back to it, leading to pressure to improve its air traffic control facilities more swiftly.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for the delays should be published in the punctuality tables? If the CAA, through the air traffic control network, is responsible for the delays, that information should be in the initial tables, so there is no need for this rather long route back to the cause of the problem.

Mr. McCrindle: I would have no objection if the CAA decided that that was a reasonable addition to the publication of the punctuality tables. Unlike the airlines,


which seem to be afraid of the publication of those tables, I welcome them as a means of bringing additional pressure to bear in improving the air traffic control system.
The charter airlines must look not just at bringing more pressure to bear to improve the air traffic control system but at their operational patterns. I wonder whether it is realistic to require a swift, three-journey turnaround each day before they can run an economic system. It has long seemed to me that if one slot is missed, progressive delays are almost inevitable throughout the remainder of the day.
I have two points that I should like to put before the House, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister might care to comment. First, should not the CAA authorise considerably less capacity than it has been prone to authorise until now? I recognise that this will not be a popular course to follow when enormous pressures are building up all the time for more and more opportunities to fly.
Secondly, the charter airlines may well be advised to reassess the basis of their operations. It has seemed to me over the past few years that, if it is the only way to run economically, we must start looking at the cost of the package tour. That proposal will not be welcomed by consumer groups or the public in general, but I remind the House that we are already on the way towards a Euro-directive that will provide for something close to no-fault liablility in relation to the hotel content of a package tour. The time may well have arrived to face a considerable increase in cost and opposition from consumer bodies because, arguably, the cost of package tours in the past has been too low. These are matters to which the charter airlines and tour operators must progressively turn their attention.
I am particularly worried by one symptom of the pressure on our aviation system. Last week, there were two occasions at Heathrow airport when four aircraft were involved in what I will call wing-clipping incidents. Happily, there were no casualties and no threat to passengers on board and there was only, according to reports, relatively minor damage to the aircraft, yet those incidents are symptomatic of the pressure on the system, caused to a large extent by the limited number of slots and the dash to get to and from the runways. That is another reason for saying that the pressure on the system is such that we should consider whether, in safety—clearly all of us would wish to promote safety—we can continue with the present slot allocation policy.
That leads me to a brief consideration of runways. Unlike British Airways and BAA plc, I believe that there must be an early decision on future runway capacity in the London area. Most commentators, including the CAA, believe that the case has been made for an additional runway at an airport south of the river. That led the Transport Select Committee to conclude that Gatwick would be the appropriate place, but if that should not happen, we must look at an amalgam of military airports south of the river or in some other way recognise that because pressure on the existing runway capacity is considerable—it will not lessen as we approach the 21st century—clear decisions must be taken soon.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Can my hon. Friend tell us where in the report we would find the evidence that led the Select Committee to conclude that there should be a second runway at Gatwick?

Mr. McCrindle: As my right hon. Friend knows, the evidence is conflicting. There is no doubt that a case can be made for taking no decision on a second runway in the London area while continuing to emphasise the need for additional terminal capacity.
However, an interim statement was issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in January or February this year, in which it pointed fairly conclusively to its belief that by the time we reached the beginning of the next century the increase in the number of passengers wishing to use London airport would be such that, although terminal capacity was important, the provision of additional runway capacity would be unavoidable. If that is correct and one accepts the CAA's approach—although I must be fair and say that it was an interim report and we are expecting the final report soon—it is difficult to escape the conclusion that we should begin to take decisions now if we are to have an adequate runway system to run alongside the additional terminals that are, understandably, preferred by British Airways and by the British Airports Authority.
I remind the House that the Air Transport Users Committee, which is probably the closest we have to a consumer body in this area, has recently said:
Flow management is as much a product of inadequate capacity as the inability of ATC to handle the requisite number of movements. If current demands for additional runway capacity in the London area are met, then it will provide some relief to the constant pressure on AT controllers of having to operate 3 of the 4 existing runways constantly at full capacity.
Another runway would provide more options in the event of emergencies and reduce the need to bunch aircraft so closely together, which was the point I made in relation to the incidents last week at Heathrow airport.
BAA plc or, as my hon. Friend the Minister called it, the British Airports Authority, is much maligned. There are many reasons for people making representations against it, and I must take my fair share of the responsibility, having criticised it frequently in the past. If profit maximisation from the London area airports is clouding BAA's judgment about additional runway capacity, that should be taken into account in any decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to announce in relation to additional runway capacity. That is why the BAA would prefer terminal 5 to proceed and I must make it clear that I have no particular objection to that. However, it would not be correct to allow it to proceed without, at the same time, paying suitable attention to the need for additional runway capacity.
It would be fair to say that the BAA is often accused of ignoring the interests of its customers, whether those customers are airlines or people who are waiting to fly from airports. I take the view that, at the least, the BAA's attitude has been somewhat arrogant in the recent past and that that arrogance perhaps stems from BAA's near monopoly of airports in the London area.
I want to make a proposition in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister may comment on it. When we privatised British Telecom as a near monopoly, we created Oftel. When we privatised British Gas as a near monopoly, we created Ofgas. I cannot see for the life of me, in


retrospect, why we overlooked the opportunity to create a similar body so that the clients of the BAA, be they airlines or especially individual passengers, had a specific body to which they were able to complain as dissatisfied customers of British Gas and British Telecom are able to do.
There is no easy solution to the problem of air traffic control. I believe that we shall be near the middle of the 1990s before we have a system which is adequately staffed and which has sufficiently updated computerised equipment. That, in itself, is perhaps a criticism of past decisions or lack of decisions. I warmly commend the idea of having a body to which dissatisfied customers of airports could apply. That does not happen under the present set-up of the British Airports Authority.

Mr. David Lambie: I want to deal with two specific points. But first I want to congratulate the Select Committee on Transport and its Chairman on the report and the Chairman's speech tonight.
I agree with roughly 95 per cent. of the report's recommendations, but I disagree violently with the remainder. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has already raised the point in an intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the recommendation of the Select Committee to designate Glasgow airport as the gateway for Scotland and to replace Prestwick airport in its present position.
Not only from debates in the House but from your knowledge of Scotland you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the one thing the Scots like is fighting among themselves. No good wedding or funeral in Scotland fails to end up in a fight. Whenever families get together and have all had a good drink, we settle our problems and fight among ourselves. Here tonight the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport is putting forward a recommendation which he knows is controversial. He has already been attacked by two of his hon. Friends.
I appeal to the Government to stick to their policy because it is correct. The Scottish lowland airports policy is correct. Retaining Prestwick as the international gateway is correct and leaving the internal European routes and tourist routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen is correct. I ask the Minister to sustain that policy tonight.

Mr. Snape: As a mere Englishman, I hesitate to attend this wedding, funeral or other excuse for a punch up. However, does my hon. Friend think that Scottish transatlantic passengers would prefer to fly from Glasgow or Prestwick?

Mr. Lambie: I shall deal with that in the remainder of my speech because it is important.
I have been here long enough to know the history of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and to know the policies he has supported in the past. He has now been elevated to the position of Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport and he is becoming contaminated by mixing with too many English Members. When he was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which carried out an inquiry into the Scottish lowland airports policy, nearly 100 per cent. of its

recommendations were accepted by the Government and the Committee came to a unanimous decision. I do not know why my hon. Friend has now changed his mind.

Mr. David Marshall: The Chairman of the Select Committee at that time was my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and it would not be dishonest to say that a fair bit of arm twisting went on. In addition, the situation has changed greatly since then. That recommendation was that Prestwick became a free port and a free trade zone. That was a novel suggestion which was worth trying, but unfortunately it failed. In addition, our hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said in his intervention that the policy of the Scottish Trades Union Congress was to support Prestwick. The STUC's policy is also to have one lowland airport in central Scotland serving the whole of central Scotland, so there are a number of contradictions in terms. Unfortunately, as usual, we are not addressing the crucial issue of what is in Scotland's best interests—gateway status for Glasgow airport.

Mr. Lambie: Yes, if we were to start again from virgin territory, it is correct to say that we would have only one airport for central Scotland which, in all probability, would be on the site suggested by the STUC, to the east of Glasgow. However, we are not starting from virgin territory. We are starting from having four airports in Scotland, three of which are in central Scotland. Each of those airports is a centre of economic activity and employment. We cannot change at a stroke and make a decision that will remove one of those main centres of activity, especially if it were to be Prestwick, which is in one of the unemployment blackspots of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston knows that gateways are not decided unilaterally by the United Kingdom Government. Gateways and routes across the north Atlantic are determined by negotiations between the United States Government and the British Government. At present the Bermuda II agreement, which was signed in 1980 and which designated the routes or the gateways, is being renegotiated. My information is that those negotiations have come to a halt because the Bush Administration in the United States have not yet settled on a policy. Until the Bush Administration reach a decision, we can go only by the negotiations that took place at the beginning of the process.
The main feature of the present negotiations is the desire of the Americans to use Manchester airport more. They want more routes from Manchester into the United Kingdom and into Europe. That would certainly do away with some of the congestion at the London airports, but it would be to the detriment of Prestwick. As far as I know, the only objection by the British Government—or rather, by the Department of Transport—to the Americans having more routes via Manchester is that that might harm, not British airports, but British air companies, and especially British Airways. That is why there is a fight in the negotiations and that is why that fight will continue when the negotiations recommence. There is a fight between the Americans who want to develop out, from Manchester, and between the British Government who are saying, "If you do that, British Airways should have more routes or gateways into the interior of the United States".
I make that point because if Manchester develops—it must develop—in the way in which British Airways and certain other parties want, it can only be to the detriment of Prestwick and of every other Scottish airport that might hope to gain gateway status if that status is taken from Prestwick.
Therefore, all that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and his Committee have done in suggesting that we should discuss a new gateway for Scotland is to say that there will not be a gateway for Scotland. Indeed, Scotland has not yet been mentioned in the negotiations. The English officials at the Department of Transport are not interested in Scotland. They are interested only in the south-east and in maintaining British Airways' rights to gain more and more routes into the United States. Manchester will become the gateway to the north of Britain and instead of being able to fly from Prestwick or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has suggested, from Glasgow, the people of Scotland will lose the gateway status of the Scottish airports and Manchester will become the gateway for north Britain. I have been to too many meetings at which those representing and supporting Manchester have suggested that Manchester is the gateway or the airport for north Britain not to take that as a serious challenge.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will maintain their policy of following the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I hope that they will follow the present policy on the lowland airports of Scotland and maintain Prestwick as the gateway for Scotland.
I turn finally to British Airports Authority plc. When the Government considered privatising BAA, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that it should be privatised as a whole. We based our case on the fact that the Scottish airports had to maintain a connection with the London airports because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has stated, one of the busiest routes in the world is that from Scotland to London, whether it be from Glasgow or Edinburgh down to London or the reverse. We suggested that BAA should be privatised as a whole so that we could maintain the link between the Scottish airports and Heathrow in particular.
I now realise that that was the wrong decision. If I could start again, I would say that BAA should be broken up and that the individual airports should be privatised and allowed to compete with one another. Of course, as a Labour Member, I cannot accept that policy generally. As a Labour Member, I believe that because the roads and railways are our common features, they belong to the people and should be paid for by the people. Similarly, I believe that airports should belong to the state and that they should be run by the state on behalf of the people. However, accepting the Government's policy of privatisation, I now realise that as Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I was conned by Sir Norman Payne into believing that it would be in the best interests of all Scots if BAA were privatised as a whole in order to maintain links with London.

Mr. David Marshall: I was conned too.

Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend says that he was conned as well. He too signed that report.
Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Sir Norman Payne in which as well as stating:
I have pleasure in enclosing BAA's 1989 Report and Accounts.",
he stated:
Passenger numbers rose to a record 68 million and BAA is committed to providing capacity to meet this and future demand with a substantial programme of capital investment: £395 million for the development of Stansted; £110 millon for the redevelopment of Terminal 3 at Heathrow; £47 million at Glasgow".
That was about half the sum that he had told us he intended to commit to investment in Glasgow. Under the original investment plan, BAA was to spend more than £100 million on Glasgow. Glasgow is one of the most congested airports that I use; even compared with Heathrow, it is congested. It takes only one tourist plane to Palma to run late and the facilities at Glasgow airport grind to a halt.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston that if we are really interested in the development of Glasgow, we should not fight against Prestwick. Instead, we should fight against the British Airports Authority, which is not providing the necessary investment at Glasgow to allow the airport to fulfil even its present role, at the start of the route from Scotland to London and as an airport serving the tourist trade.
Let the Scots unite. Do not let us fight. Politically, we spend most of our time fighting the English in the south-east who vote Conservative and, unfortunately, usually give us a Conservative Government. But on this matter, let us unite to try to maintain not only national transport in and out of Scotland equal to that anywhere in the world but to maintain an international gateway, which I believe should be Prestwick.

9 pm

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee and on the extremely large amount of work that the Committee has done in producing its excellent report. The Select Committees' work and our debates on the estimates give the House the opportunity to consider matters in depth in a way that is not normally possible. I am glad that the Liaison Committee agreed that this estimate should be debated in the terms set out in the Order Paper.
Let me make a couple of procedural points. The first concerns Back-Bench Members' time. We only have three estimate days in the entire year and to put on a major statement at the beginning of such business is very unfair. I hope that the Leader of the House, who I know is sympathetic in general to Select Committees, will bear that in mind in future.
Secondly, it has been pointed out that the Front-Bench representation is a little strange, given that this is a debate on airline safety. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is primarily responsible for roads and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has always shown a great interest in railways rather than in aviation. Having said that, I think that there is an important point to be made. One of the major concerns dealt with in the Select Committee's report was the question of delays. Very often such delays occur not at the airport but on the approaches to the airport, so perhaps it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member


for West Bromwich, East should take part. In that connection, I welcome the announcement made at Question Time today about the improvement of the communications with Manchester airport. I flew into Heathrow myself this morning and the greatest delay that I experienced was in queuing up to get a ticket for the Underground. Had a couple of extra windows been open, the whole process would have been speeded up, but as it was there was considerable congestion.
The subject is of great importance to the public, given their concern about aircraft safety and fear of aircraft accidents. I agree with the view that the Chairman of the Committee expressed earlier—that we should talk about near hits rather than near misses. There is grave concern about the matter, as well as the concern about delay.
This is a short debate and I shall make only one or two points. Although I strongly agree with many of the recommendations made by the Select Committee, I completely disagree with the view expressed in recommendation (x):
We recommend that, in spite of the many difficulties and obstacles and the inevitable controversy, all efforts should be made to provide a second main runway at Gatwick.
A reference to paragraph 58 follows. By an odd chance, I happened to visit Gatwick on the day when the Select Committee's report was published; indeed, I spent the morning in the control tower. The Committee did not visit Gatwick. No one looking at Gatwick from the control tower could possibly believe that a second runway would be sensible. To start with—this is not mentioned in the report—it would mean destroying and knocking down the second terminal at Gatwick, which has only recently been opened. The idea that the runway could be built at an angle to the other runway does not strike me as feasible. Moreover, the whole of the surrounding area is grossly overheated in economic terms—with serious housing and other problems. I am astonished that the Committee should have come up with that recommendation, which it seems to have done gratuitously and without referring to evidence to support its conclusions.
In my view, we need to press ahead as fast as possible with the development of Stansted. The Secretary of State went to the topping-out procedure at Stansted. We have the prospect of a fine new terminal there, and it is important to proceed with that as rapidly as possible. I certainly do not think that the idea of developing Gatwick by means of a second runway is feasible or sensible.

Mr. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend concede the point that I made earlier that the Civil Aviation Authority earlier this year said that, if additional runway capacity was necessary, it was most necessary south of the River Thames?

Mr. Higgins: That may be so. However, as my hon. Friend said earlier, he was referring to an interim report and I do not believe that it was supported by the evidence. The argument is very much along the lines that I have put forward with regard to the development of Stansted airport.
The Select Committee on Transport also considered aircraft routes and I hope that we can consider that matter very carefully. At the moment, aircraft routes very often cross main centres of population. That is an historic accident dating back many years and the routes on the south coast in particular are in the wrong places and cross areas where they cause the maximum noise disturbance.
I welcome the Select Committee's conclusion about night flights. The Select Committee took comprehensive evidence, including evidence from the British Airports Authority, that in some places night slots are not taken up and would not greatly help the problem of day-time congestion. We must consider the great noise problems that night flights still cause, despite the increased use of quieter aircraft.
The Select Committee also considered in great detail the use of military air space. It is extraordinary that large areas of air space which could be used are at present taken up for military purposes, not least along the south coast and several other routes to Europe.
I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about that some time ago. It is extraordinary that the Navy, in particular, takes up large sections of the English channel which might otherwise be reasonably used for civil purposes. Some of the replies to my questions about firing ranges seem to refute the old argument that what goes up must come down. I was assured that a great deal of firing was carried out, but no one had the remotest idea where the shells eventually landed. The Select Committee was right to draw attention to that matter because we must deal with the problems with aircraft routes, particularly to Europe. Obviously many other aspects must be considered in the light of the Select Committee report.
This debate gives us the opportunity to consider these matters in depth and in a way which was not possible before we had the Select Committee system set up on a departmental basis. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Shettleston and his colleagues on giving the House an opportunity to debate these matters in a more sophisticated manner than used to be possible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), my parliamentary colleagues on the Committee and the Clerk of the Committee on producing a first class report. I want to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who suggested that if there was any consensus in this debate it might be on the point that the Department of Transport should contact the Ministry of Defence and ask it seriously about its perception of its needs in 1989. There is a widespread feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House that that should be done.
I want to speak up first of all for the air traffic controllers, those hard-pressed people who suffer enormous strain, who work often in terribly unsatisfactory and claustrophobic conditions in towers and elsewhere. To put it bluntly, some of us marvel at how they perform their jobs as well as they do and that there are not more accidents rather than the near misses and occasional accidents which hit the headlines.
I want to raise two of the Select Committee's recommendations with the Minister. Recommendation (vi) states:
It seems to us that 17 years is too long for an ATCO II to have to wait to reach the top of the incremental salary scale and we trust that this point will be considered in further salary negotiations.
The answer was:
The CAA agrees that the current salary scales are too long. Negotiations with the IPCS are well underway and it seems possible that a complex package of changes may lead to a reduction in the number of years.


What is the policy on people who reach the peak of the incremental scale? Certainly the anecdotal evidence is that there is great dissatisfaction about the time that people must wait for all kinds of promotions.
I direct the Minister's attention to paragraph No. (xxxv):
We believe that the operation of ATFMUS"—
that is, air traffic flow management units—
will now steadily improve. There may well be some difficulties between European states, especially with the central ATFMU and we recommend that the Department of Transport keep a close watch on progress and be ready to step in, if necessary at ministerial level, should there be a need to resolve political problems".
The Government's answer was that the
CAA and the Department of Transport are keeping a close watch on progress on the central ATFMU. The Department will not hesitate to intervene at the appropriate level, should the need arise.
That is a classic ambiguous statement. What are the Government going to do about the unit? Is the matter being tackled seriously?
Time is short, but I shall quickly raise two other matters. One relates to a question that I asked the Minister on 18 April 1988 about aircraft fire safety. I asked:
what assessment he or the Civil Aviation Authority has made of the fire safety implications of considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol being carried aboard large passenger aircraft; if he will examine the feasibility of siting duty-free shops in arrival lounges only; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister replied:
The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for air safety regulation. It says that there is no evidence that carrying duty-free alcohol on passenger flights is in itself dangerous. We do not propose to review the siting of duty-free shops.
I have a question about that. There may be no evidence, and it may or may not be true that duty-free alcohol is in itself dangerous, but we are not at all persuaded that it is not dangerous. It could be very dangerous. I do not think that I exaggerate in any way what we were told at Heathrow and elsewhere on various all-party visits. It is the considered judgment of many of those who bear major responsibilities in airlines that it is an extra hazard to carry considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol. No one is suggesting that people should not have a drink on board an aircraft. That is not the argument at all. The argument is totally different. It is about carrying enormous amounts of drink in racks and elsewhere, which, if arrangements were properly made, could surely be purchased at duty-free shops on landing. The only argument against it is that, when they land, passengers may be in more of a hurry than when they started out and would not want to go to duty-free shops. That boils down to a clear profit matter.
The issue that we have to face up to is whether profit on that basis is worth the extra possible danger of an accident happening, with heavy bottles tumbling out of racks and injuring heaven knows who, and creating an extra fire hazard.
On 18 April I asked the Minister:
With regard to the Civil Aviation Authority, Christopher
Tugendhat writes:
Nevertheless, we would be happy to see any international moves to eliminate its carriage, such as may happen in the EEC over the forthcoming period.

I asked whether there had been any further EEC discussion on this issue of the dangers of carrying a great deal of heavy alcohol. I went on:
That quotation was from a letter dated 15 April. Can the discrepancy about the CAA's attitude be cleared up? How much sense does it make to have 500 bottles of booze in the cabin of a jumbo jet during an emergency, bearing in mind the risks with regard to fire and weight?
The Minister replied:
The hon. Gentleman does not provide any discrepancy when he reads out the letter from Christopher Tugendhat. Clearly, if 500 bottles are not being carried there could be a saving of £12,000 a year, and that point was made in 'The Green Capitalist', which was reviewed in the New Scientist. The important point is that where there is a safety risk the CAA takes action, but where there is not, it does not"—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 540.]
Are the Government quite sure that the CAA, when part of it says that there is no safety risk, is correct? What is the assessment of the Department of Transport? The Minister has access to considerable expert opinion, and I hope that he will at least say what the considered view of the Department of Transport is on the risks of carrying this massive amount of heavy glass and liquor hither and thither across the airways of the world. Would it not be much simpler, apart from anything else, in terms of fuel if this were tackled, and some arrangements made by those who want duty free to collect it on landing rather than hauling it across the skies?
In all this discussion, we should take into account that one of the things that would particularly help the Scots and those in the north of England would be greater railway investment. The most recent figures that the Library has for railway assistance as a percentage of gross national product are as follows: in Luxembourg, 2·88 per cent., in Belgium, 1·14 per cent., Italy 0·83 per cent.—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Are the figures that the hon. Gentleman is reading out those for investment in the railways or those for public spending in the railways, including current subsidy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the debate is not about railways.

Mr. Dalyell: Others wish to speak, so I shall send this table to the Minister. I should welcome a comment on it. The direct answer is that those are percentages of total state assistance. The grant paid under EEC regulations 1191/69 comes in a different set of figures. I should like some answers to the figures, in writing.

Mr. Peter Fry: Some of the contributions made tonight have summed up some of the problems facing civil aviation. Far too many decisions are dictated by interests other than that of the future of British civil aviation. We have had some internecine strife between Labour Members over Scotland. One suspects that that has little to do with what is the best answer for civil aviation in Scotland.
I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I understand his feelings, and they might be mine if my constituency were his, but many of the proposals about Gatwick are based on considerations other than the future of aviation. Those of us who supported the Chairman of the Select Committee


genuinely tried to look at those interests rather than at the partisan interests. We leave it to others to put their gloss on the proposals.
Hon. Members have referred to extra runways in the south-east. We are proud that we have the first and second international airport, in terms of international movements, in Heathrow and Gatwick. We also have a national airline of which we should be very proud. However, the problem remains that if we cannot continue to allow that airline the use of an airport that will enable it to increase the number of flights, and if we try to run the first and second international airports in the world with only three runways each, that policy is doomed to failure. There are many airports in the United States with three or four runways that cater for far fewer passengers than we do and operate fewer movements than we do.
In our report we were not trying to upset the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing or trying to undermine the value of property around Gatwick. We merely said that it did not make a lot of sense for the second biggest international airport in the world to try to operate off one runway. If my right hon. Friend considers the evidence we took from witnesses, he will discover that on several occasions Committee members asked witnesses what they thought about the future of Gatwick, and invariably they answered that it should have a second runway.
The report is not just about runway capacity; the main consideration is the state of air traffic control and its future. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) said, we had no evidence to suggest that the Government had denied investment to the CAA. What was admitted, of course, was that the CAA was not good at managing what money it had been given. That is the key to it. Governments, quite rightly, are suspicious of giving too much money to those who do not spend it wisely. It is no good wringing one's hands and saying that we should have done this or that in the past, as the CAA has admitted that it had not done enough or was doing enough to prepare for the future.
We must admit that the explosion in travel that we have witnessed in the past few years was not foreseen by many people, least of all the airlines, which only a few years ago bemoaned the fact that the number of passengers was decreasing. When we visited Copenhagen, the head of air traffic control told us emphatically that he and his colleagues had not foreseen the enormous increase in the number of flights and in the number of people who wanted to fly that had occurred in a short time.
Under Mr. Tugendhat the CAA has now addressed itself, albeit late, to the problem. The Government have also suggested that they are willing to see that the CAA invests properly in the future. It will not be until 1994–95 that we have a level of air traffic control that will be able to cope even with current demand. Even then that provision will give us only some 30 per cent. extra capacity.
My main argument in support of the Committee's report is that 1994–95 will answer today's problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), however, that by then we shall be faced with even greater problems, with a futher increase in demand. Therefore, we must think now about the investment and systems that will increase enormously capacity into the next century.
We were lucky enough to visit the Royal Aeronautical Establishment at Bedford and there we were told about a

fourth dimensional system of air traffic control. We were also told, however, that much more research was needed and that it might take up to 15 years before that research became operative.
It is absolutely essential that we ensure that the research undertaken in this country is pushed ahead as far as possible, otherwise I suspect that the kind of problems that we have had with congestion in the air and congestion on the ground will be subjects to which the House will return again and again in the next 15 years.
I agree with those who have mentioned the problems of morale and staffing in air traffic control. I am convinced that, at long last, the CAA has addressed itself to what was becoming a serious issue. Those of us who talked to air traffic controllers became convinced that they were unsure of their future, unhappy about the way in which management related to them and extremely unhappy about their pay structure. The response in the report and the response of the present chairman of the CAA start to address those problems. I admit that, with the best will in the world, it will be impossible in the immediate future to recruit the number of air traffic controllers necessary to meet the anticipated demand.
The Committee says that we are on the right path, but mistakes have been made for which we shall pay dearly. Put in the widest context of moving people and transport generally, we have come to realise that, as the people of this country, Europe and the world become more affluent. they want to travel more and more. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that they can travel as they wish, safely and without undue delay. It is an enormous challenge, not merely to the CAA, traffic controllers and airlines, but to the Government.

Mr. Peter Snape: I am sorry that we have been prevented from hearing the contributions of two hon. Members who are still waiting to speak. One of the most annoying aspects of debates in this House is how often people sit patiently without being allowed to contribute. I join other hon. Members from both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and the Committee on their report, the merits of which can be measured by the fact that the Government's response has been reasonable and detailed. That is not always so when such reports are published. I do not say that the Opposition agree with all the Government's responses, but, unusually, the Government have shown some signs of forethought and many of the Committee's eminently sensible suggestions have elicited reasonable responses from the Department of Transport.
The debate can be broken down into three main sections. We have heard much about the problems of air traffic control. There has been unanimity among Committee Members, and hon. Members in this debate, that the problems of congestion in the air are long standing and are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Great hope has been put on Eurocontrol for the future. It is worthwhile for all countries, including our own, to give up some sovereignty of their own air space for the common good.
Eurocontrol has been around for almost 30 years. Although Government Ministers these days make optimistic noises and projections for the future, it would


have been possible to introduce what they are advocating at virtually any time over the past 30 years. The fact that we appear, belatedly, to be moving forward does nothing to alleviate the enormous congestion problems that we shall face over the next five, six or seven years.
There is some degree of unanimity on the attitude of the Civil Aviation Authority towards air traffic control problems. It was pointed out from both sides of the House that, as recently as two years ago, the authority talked about redundancy and early retirement for air traffic controllers. Belatedly—again, this is welcomed by both sides of the House—the authority has embarked on a detailed recruitment campaign to combat shortages and the overwork from which many air traffic controllers suffer.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston referred to safety. He said that there was no concrete evidence to show that safety was at risk. I think that both sides of the House would welcome that. We are all concerned about air safety. For understandable reasons, newspapers pass through phases in which certain issues appear to be topical. Last year, they entered a phase in which air misses or, as my hon. Friend described them, near hits, were thought topical and newsworthy. Thankfully and mercifully, despite the enormous increase in air traffic over the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, there has never been a collision involving a civil airliner over this country. It is enormously to the credit of those responsible for these matters that travel by air is as safe as it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that the Secretary of State had reacted reasonably to the report and that the problems were not all his fault because he had inherited them. That is entirely appropriate: the right hon. Gentleman inherited everything else, including his seat, so why not a few problems too? We welcome his fairness in dealing with some of them.
The former British Airports Authority came in for some stick in the debate. BAA plc has few friends these days and probably does not deserve many. I notice that this morning's Daily Mail, under the heading
Keep your eyes on the runway, BAA",
pans the BAA once again for its obsession with profit making—some might say profiteering—from some aspects of airport management. Yesterday's Observer carried a full article headed:
The airport authorities regret the late departure of your flight, but will be more than delighted to overcharge you for car parking and duty-free goods, whisky, cigarettes, perfumes. …".
That may sound a bit strong, but it is a view shared by many people.
Many of us believe that the BAA should never have been privatised in the first place, a belief that has been underlined by the sort of complaints—

Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the activities in which the BAA is now involved and about which he complains were carried on before privatisation? They were profitable then and they are profitable now, and there is no evidence to suggest that they affect BAA's role as a provider of airports in any way.

Mr. Snape: I dispute that. Those responsible for running bus and coach services to and from airports

owned by BAA plc might well take a view different from the sanguine one advanced by the hon. Gentleman. Privatisation has enabled Sir Norman Payne and his chief executive to do wonders for their salaries and to exploit the captive market of passengers and those who operate airport services.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) say that if price restraint on take-off and landing charges and the various other airside charges were eased BAA might not need to fleece the franchisee as it does now. That shows a touching faith in Sir Norman Payne, for which he would be grateful, but I do not share it. Releasing BAA from those constraints would merely enable it to exploit the captive market in the air that it now exploits fairly well on the ground. Any attempt to relax the restriction will, I hope, be opposed by the Minister.
Airport security is also a serious matter. The Minister will know of the degree of public worry about it. I understand from newspaper reports that the United States authorities have developed a machine capable of detecting Semtex in luggage and in the containers placed in aircraft holds. If the Federal Aviation Authority decides to make the use of such machines compulsory, I presume that some of the 40 or so machines that are or order will be installed in Europe. I understand that American airlines intend to install these machines in Paris, Frankfurt and London. What are the Government doing to ensure that passengers on British or other airlines have their luggage screened by these machines? I understand that if the Federal Aviation Authority so rules screening will be carried out only on the luggage owned by passengers on American airlines. That is because the machines will be owned by the American airlines or the United States Government—I know not which. That worries many hon. Members and perhaps the Minister can tell us where we stand on the installation of similar machines and whether passengers on British or foreign airlines using international airports will have their luggage similarly screened.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was critical about some aspects of the charter airline business and I take issue with him on some points. He should bear in mind that for millions of people their one flight per year is by a charter airline to the sun. The suggestion that delays can be laid at the door of the three-round-trips syndrome so beloved of charter airlines is unfair. Britannia Airways supplies many hon. Members, including me, with a parliamentary briefing on air traffic control delays. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman received a copy. Obviously Britannia Airways has its own axe to grind and one reads such briefings with one's tongue fixed firmly in one's cheek. The briefing says:
Taking a typical Saturday last summer, 23 July 1988, analysis of Britannia's operational records reveals the following data and causes for delays. Total number of flights: 202. Total delays over one hour: 107. Total delays by ATC problems: 104.
It lists the reasons for delays to its other three aircraft, and none of them was due to the three-round-trips syndrome about which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar complains. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about aviation and the travel business generally. I see from the the declaration of Members' interests that he is a director of Hogg Robinson (Travel) Ltd. where I am sure his expertise is welcome. It takes enormous courage for anyone who works in the travel agency business and who


presumably benefits from cheaper travel as a result to advocate massive increases for millions of other people. It is a bit foolhardy but, as I say, it demonstrates enormous courage on the part of the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on it.
Some Conservative Members made the ritual plea for liberalisation. I hope that in that context we can talk about the additional air traffic control problems that such moves are likely to create for flights originating and terminating in Europe as well as for flights further afield. The problems that liberalisation are likely to bring include an increase in the number of smaller aircraft which, of course, still have to pass through an air traffic control system. I hope that at some time in the future—we shall not have time tonight—we can debate the additional problems that such liberalisation might mean for air traffic control.
I should like to ask about the liberalisation of services worldwide. All too often the Government seem to act as agents for British Airways. I realise that British Airways plays an important role in the British economy, but it is a privatised company and welcomes, as it puts it, the embraces of worldwide competition. For example, there has been pressure and protracted negotiations about increasing capacity on the routes to Singapore which have remained unchanged since 1976. Not a great deal of progress appears to have been made. British Airways objects to an increase in the number of flights by other airlines from Heathrow. If British Airways is to compete in a worldwide market, the competition should include more flights by foreign-owned airlines from Heathrow.
The debate, of necessity, has been somewhat truncated. I join the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in deploring the Government's habit of making a statement in prime time, which diverts the attention of the media from important debates such as this and reduces the time that can be spent upon these important matters. The Government are quite good at that, but the practice is to be deplored.
Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and the Committee on a detailed, cogently argued and well-produced report. It deserves the Government's serious response. I hope that many of its

The Minister for . Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We expect and demand air traffic services to meet a very high standard of safety. The primary function of air traffic control is to prevent collisions and keep aircraft apart. The Committee, as its Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), said at the beginning of his very important speech, found that National Air Traffic Services has an admirable safety record. The evidence shows that the number of risk-bearing air misses or near hits has declined substantially over the years, despite the massive growth of traffic in recent years. I join those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have paid tribute to the air traffic controllers and their assistants who have coped with the rapid growth of traffic while maintaining high professional standards.
To respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), since 1987 the Civil Aviation Authority has moved away from a direct link with the Civil Service and towards a communications policy that is spelt out in the appendix to the Government's response to

the Select Committee, with the result that morale is improving and the CAA's opportunity to deal with the unions in the interests of those who work in National Air Traffic Services has improved.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point because I wish to answer some of the other points that have been made in the debate. As he said at the end of his speech, we can follow up some of these points in correspondence.
I am sad that my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were unable to make a speech in the debate. Both of them would have been able to contribute a great deal of expertise as they both take a great interest in the subject. However, that is one of the penalties of a relatively short debate. As for the family discussion among the Scots, if we had managed to sort out the previous Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the present Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport through a return to the names that their constituencies bore before they were changed to Cunninghame, South and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, we should have had time for speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood.
The Committee's report and the Government's response have been rightly praised—not that everyone will agree with every point in either the report or the response. Both the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority join the Committee in basing their views on the facts. Perhaps the greatest tribute that I can pay to the Select Committee is that it got at the facts and then introduced personal, local or national interests.
In response to the Committee's report, we made it clear that we broadly agree with its analysis of the problems facing the air traffic control system and that we accept the majority of the recommendations. We have yet to respond to a number of the recommendations because they require further study. We shall be able to go further when we have received formal advice from the CAA.
We are giving careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations about the future status of the National Air Traffic Services. The possibility of splitting off the National Air Traffic Services from the Civil Aviation Authority should be examined. The Committee will not wish us to rush into a snap decision. Reviews are demanding in terms of management effort. National Air Traffic Services has a great deal on its plate at present.
We have also received a copy of the report prepared for Lord Rawlinson's group. We welcome that independent report as a contribution to the current debate on air space issues. We shall study it over the coming weeks, along with the advice of the CAA and the Select Committee.
While acknowledging that the record of air traffic control safety was "extremely good", the Select Committee rightly was anxious to ensure that the reporting and investigating machinery should be as comprehensive and objective as possible. It is worth reminding the House that if all the miles covered on roads were travelled in the air, instead of 5,000 people dying each year, the figure would be about 650. We are dramatically safer in the hands of the airline and air traffic control than we are on the roads. I was reminded by re-listening to "At the Drop of a Hat" by Michael Flanders and Donald


Swann that the airline coach drivers have instructions to make sure that statistics are kept the right way round. To make the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) feel more at home, if all the miles travelled on the roads were travelled on the railways only 150 people would die each year, so I pay tribute to the railways too.
The Committee recommended the creation of new, free-standing machinery which would be independent from the CAA. We have not been able to accept that in full. We acknowledge the need to develop the system of reporting, investigation and assessment of air misses to cover incidents reported by controllers as well as those reported by pilots. We believe that the new machinery set up by the chairman of the CAA to deal with controller-reported incidents will complement the highly-respected work which the joint airmiss working group does on pilot-reported air misses. One of the reasons why the media has gone off the over-reporting or hyped-up reporting of near hits is the openness of the system. There is no risk-free way of moving and if we can be open about risks we shall get more common sense and factual reporting rather than exaggeration.
The transfer of responsibility for investigating air misses from NATS to the CAA safety regulation group goes a long way towards meeting the Committee's concern that investigation should be independent and objective. We recognise the important part the Department has played in the work of the air accident investigation branch. That was demonstrated by the report on the air miss over Lydd last year.
The Committee's initial concern was with air traffic control safety and the adequacy of the air traffic control system to provide a safe service. I recognise that many other points have been raised in the debate. I cannot answer them all, so I shall answer some of them by correspondence. I want to ensure that the public expectation that the National Air Traffic Services will handle the traffic expeditiously and efficiently will be achieved with safety as the priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that point repeatedly and he would want me to repeat it tonight.
The system has not been able to keep pace with the rapid growth in traffic experienced in the past few years, mainly because of growth in the economy rather than deregulation or liberalisation. Severe delays were experienced last summer and may emerge again this summer. That is not only a United Kingdom problem. People quote Britannia Airways, but they are not talking about air traffic control in Britain alone. There is similar experience overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was absolutely right in suggesting that perhaps more airlines providing air services to charter companies should build in recovery time as the railways do. Those who expect to run their planes without anything going wrong are working on a false expectation. My hon. Friend's point was brave, sensible and right.
There is a problem with the drive towards further liberalisation if we get things moving wrong. Air traffic control authorities in Europe will find any excuse to cling to outdated restrictions on tariffs and market access. The immediate causes of air traffic control congestion are diverse, ranging from spasmodic industrial action in

different parts of the continent to failures which occur from time to time in air traffic control computer systems. But the fundamental cause lies in the shortage of air traffic controllers. For substantial periods of the year the systems all work close to capacity. There is little slack to fall back on when things go wrong. A failure or shortcoming in one place quickly produces a knock-on effect across Europe.
The Government, airlines, airport operators and the providers of air traffic control services have all been planning for years on the assumption that the demand for air transport will continue to rise, but even then there were long delays in airports last summer. It was known that there would be pressure on the system. Air traffic controller disputes in some countries are a sad fact of life in aviation today. Disruption on that scale had not been anticipated and we have all been forced to rethink our approach to the problem of congestion.
The responsibility for planning and operating air traffic services rests on the civil side with the CAA, with Ministry of Defence involvement on the military side. The point which has been made about military air space has been dealt with by the dangerous areas users' group, and perhaps we shall put out a bit more information on that. The possible gains may be mildly exaggerated when one looks into the facts, as I did. We heard about the increased number of trainee air traffic controllers and the bringing back into service of those who are training them; that was a useful point on which the Committee built. Additional resources are available in the United Kingdom.
Last summer's delays have brought home to everyone concerned the interdependence of European air traffic control authorities. I was grateful for the remarks by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on that point. Flights could not leave United Kingdom airports because of congested airways on routes to Europe. Flights from the continent to north America were delayed because of congestion in the United Kingdom's air space. Few countries in Europe could genuinely claim to be free from blame, and the problems grew as the summer wore on. The days are past when such problems can be tackled by one country alone. It has been widely recognised that we must improve co-operation and co-ordination between European countries.
Last year, the United Kingdom held the presidency of Eurocontrol. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that we must take the lead in strengthening the organisation and give it the chance to take necessary measures. Last July, my right hon. Friend wrote to all European Community Transport Ministers who had not joined Eurocontrol to persuade them to do so. We were pleased that Italy and Spain subsequently announced that they intended to join, and they are now in the process of doing so. From outside the Community, Turkey and Malta have recently joined and Cyprus is likely to become a member by the end of the year. That increased membership will strengthen Eurocontrol and help it to play the crucial role that we foresee for it.
In September, my right hon. Friend wrote to all west European Transport Ministers proposing the creation of a central flow management unit to co-ordinate flow throughout west Europe. That proposal was unanimously approved at a meeting of the European civil aviation conference in Frankfurt in October. Eurocontrol was given the job of building and operating the system. Last week, Eurocontrol Ministers approved the detailed implementation plan. The nucleus of the central flow


management unit has been set up. We now look to Eurocontrol to implement the phased introduction of the system over the next four years.
Many people are calling on us to go a stage further by adopting a unified system of air traffic control across Europe. A sudden transfer of all responsibility to a single European authority is not feasible, but the Government have not ruled it out as a long-term objective. The priority is to devise and implement practical measures that will improve co-operation and co-ordination between national systems. It would be counterproductive to divert the efforts and energies of those working in the sector away from these practical measures on to what might turn out to be an illusory ideal.
One of the most important recommendations in the Select Committee's report was that more emphasis should be placed on Eurocontrol. In our presidency year, we helped to revitalise Eurocontrol, which, as the Committee said, has had a chequered history. The highly successful meeting of Eurocontrol's permanent commisson last week confirmed that Eurocontrol is rapidly assuming a major role. There is now widespread political backing for it throughout Europe, and it seems to be rising to the challenge.
My right hon. Friend's priority, on behalf of the nation, is to improve co-operation, acting through Eurocontrol. If that is successful, Europe's air traffic control systems will become more integrated and interdependent. Increasingly, decisions will be taken on a common basis. Our approach to Europe as a whole is to take practical steps, and, once they are agreed, to make them stick. Experimentation with grand designs is not an option when the safety of air transport is at stake.
We should try to build on practical safety measures. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, if I may have his attention for a moment, again raised the question of bottles, which are normally made of glass and contain liquid oxygen of 40 per cent. proof, dropping on to passengers' heads. It is ludicrous for people who may have spent between £200 and £1,000 on a journey to try to save £1 or £2 by carting a weight from one part of the world to another. It is just as ludicrous that they carry so much luggage. I am concerned about things falling out of lockers on to people's heads, but I am more concerned about a person with a 20 kg suitcase than one person with a bottle. I hope that more people will ensure that the bottles that they carry are made of plastic, and that includes their shampoo bottles. Obviously, there is some risk of carrying such stuff around, but it is pretty small. I have seen one tragic major air crash. I do not think bottles of booze made much difference to it. People should realise that international agreement would be needed for any significant change, because all air lines, not only British ones, must be controlled. The opportunity of more competition and the point about most terminals needing to be rebuilt will not go away. People should follow the example set by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and myself and not buy the stuff. There are better things to do with time and money—

Mr. Lambie: What about Scotch whisky exports?

Mr. Bottomley: Whenever possible, I do drink whisky.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: I have dealt with two points made by the hon. Gentleman and I have not dealt with some points made by other hon. Members.
The friends of Prestwick—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: It would perhaps be less selfish of the hon. Member for Linlithgow if he were to let me deal with the points made by three of his hon. Friends.
The Government agree with the majority Scottish view that Prestwick should be the international gateway airport across the Atlantic. Several services available from Glasgow to European destinations have not been taken up. The Government negotiate the routes. It is up to the airlines to use them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) rightly said that much is happening. We want to ensure that the growth in movements is accompanied by increased safety. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a classic speech, starting with the Romans. She went on to talk about the importance of subsidies, but it is investment that is important. That answers another point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he is still listening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) pointed out that some of the Committee's conclusions would not have the wholehearted agreement of all involved. The Government's policy on Gatwick was made clear in our response to the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) talked about some of the issues involved in this form of transport. It is important to make sure that we continue to increase the safety of all forms of transport. I remind the House again that the number of people who tragically lose their life in air and rail crashes pales in comparison with the number killed on the roads. If we can make roads equally safe by paying attention to details, and if we can improve the road network in the same way as air traffic control systems have improved, we will be doing our job. We are not saying to people that they should not travel. More people want to travel and they should have the opportunity to do so safely. We must work in increasing co-operation with our fellow Europeans and others around the world.
I apologise to hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to speak and to those whose points I have not answered in detail. In view of the excellent report and the Government's response, which has generally been welcomed, it is right to allow the Chairman of the Select Committee to have the last word.

Mr. David Marshall: Unfortunately, this has been a short debate, but an important one. I congratulate hon. Members who have participated, and I commiserate with those who could not take part.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the importance of estimates debates. I hope that the House will give serious consideration to increasing the frequency of such debates. That is important and would benefit, in particular, Back Benchers who often do not have the chance to debate the fruits of their labours in Select Committees.
The debate highlighted several matters of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is


encouraging to see how much common ground there is between us on many aviation and transport issues. There is not such a great deal that separates us. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, it was amusing that the greatest disputes and divergences of opinion were between Members of the same parties on two different issues. Scottish Members disagreed on which airport should be Scotland's international gateway and Conservative Members from the south-east on whether there should be a second runway at Gatwick or anywhere else in the south-east.
My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concentrated on the need for safety, for better man management and for improvements for staff, to make better use of regional airports and to look closely at the operations of the British Airports Authority plc and British Airways. They are all extremely important matters in debates such as this and vital to the future of civil aviation.
The hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Wellingborough and the right hon. Member for Worthing took on board the problems of 1992 and spoke about how Eurocontrol should develop in future, the problems of runway capacity in the south-east, punctuality in chartered airline scheduling, flight paths over major centres of population, night flights, the use of air space, especially military air space, near misses and the BAA.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) summed up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench in his inimitable style and made a number of telling points.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider anew the points that have been made in the debate. This is one of the few Transport Select Committee reports to be debated on the Floor of the House. With two reports to be published later this year—one, in two weeks, on airport security and the other, at the end of the year, on roads for the future—I am sure that this will not be the last such debate. The Minister tried his best to answer a number of the points made by hon. Members. I hope that he will keep his word and that he will enter into correspondence with hon. Members and let us have the answers to the points that were raised. I am sure that we will all be grateful to him for that.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates 1989–90, Class VI, Vote 3 and Class VIII, Vote 2.

Class VI, Vote 3

Question put,
That a further sum, not exceeding £24,044,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on salaries and other administrative costs.

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 10.

Division No. 287]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hannam, John


Allason, Rupert
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Amess, David
Harris, David


Amos, Alan
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Arbuthnot, James
Hayward, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Ashby, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Atkins, Robert
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Atkinson, David
Hill, James


Batiste, Spencer
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bellingham, Henry
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irvine, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jack, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Janman, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Key, Robert


Bowis, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knowles, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Buck, Sir Antony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Burns, Simon
Lightbown, David


Burt, Alistair
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Butcher, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lord, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Carrington, Matthew
McCrindle, Robert


Cash, William
Maclean, David


Chapman, Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Mans, Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Colvin, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Couchman, James
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Devlin, Tim
Pawsey, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Rhodes James, Robert


Dover, Den
Riddick, Graham


Dunn, Bob
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Durant, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Emery, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Evennett, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, Sir William


Forman, Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forth, Eric
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Fox, Sir Marcus
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


French, Douglas
Speller, Tony


Fry, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gale, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Gardiner, George
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Gill, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gorst, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gow, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thorne, Neil


Hague, William
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Townend, John (Bridlington)






Trippier, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Wheeler, John



NOES


Alton, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)



Dalyell, Tam
Tellers for the Noes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Class VIII, Vote 2

Question put,
That a further sum, not exceeding £156,213,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on assistance to shipping; civil aviation; central administration; certain licensing and testing schemes; research and development; road safety and certain other transport services; including civil defence, grants in aid, international subscriptions, and residual expenses associated with the privatisation of transport industries.

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 11.

Division No. 288]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael





Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Irvine, Michael
Speller, Tony


Jack, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Key, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knapman, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knowles, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thorne, Neil


Lightbown, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lord, Michael
Trippier, David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


McCrindle, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maclean, David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mans, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, Sir David
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wheeler, John


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Shelton, Sir William
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


NOES


Alton, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)



Dalyell, Tam
Tellers for the Noes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Martin Redmond and


McCartney, Ian
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Salmond, Alex

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.)

Estimates, 1989–90

Question put,
That a further sum, not exceeding £65,359,143,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in the House of Commons Papers Nos. 207, 231, 232, 413 and 442. —[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 12.

Division No. 289]
[10.24 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amess, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amos, Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arbuthnot, James
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David
Bowis, John






Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lightbown, David


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miscampbell, Norman


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Gale, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, George
Pawsey, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gill, Christopher
Rhodes James, Robert


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Riddick, Graham


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gorst, John
Rowe, Andrew


Gow, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shelton, Sir William


Ground, Patrick
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hague, William
Speller, Tony





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. David Maclean and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


NOES


Alton, David
Salmond, Alex


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Bermingham, Gerald
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Buckley, George J.
Wigley, Dafydd


Cox, Tom



Dalyell, Tam
Tellers for the Noes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Martin Redmond and


McCartney, Ian
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three foregoing Resolutions and upon the two Resolutions [6 July] relating to Estimates, 1989–90, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31 March 1990, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

BRUNEI (APPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not exempted business. Objection having been taken, Second Reading what day?

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

SOLICITORS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Motion made—[Mr. Lightbown]—and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved: —

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 7.

Division No. 290]
[10.40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gale, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alton, David
Gill, Christopher


Amess, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amos, Alan
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arbuthnot, James
Gorst, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Atkinson, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Batiste, Spencer
Hague, William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowis, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Irvine, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Janman, Tim


Burt, Alistair
Key, Robert


Butcher, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Butterfill, John
Knapman, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carrington, Matthew
Knowles, Michael


Cash, William
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chope, Christopher
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Miscampbell, Norman


Dunn, Bob
Mitchell, Sir David


Durant, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Fallon, Michael
Pawsey, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Rhodes James, Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Rowe, Andrew


Finsberg. Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, Sir William


Forman, Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Forth, Eric
Speller, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


French, Douglas
Stevens, Lewis





Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thorne, Neil
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Waddington, Rt Hon David



NOES


Cox, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Dalyell, Tarn



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Ian
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c),

LIMITATION (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved. —[Mr. Lightbown]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

TRADE MARKS

Motion made—[Mr. Lightbown]—and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents)
That this House takes notes of European Community Documents Nos. 8896/84 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd December 1987, and 4090/86 and the Department's Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda of 6th November 1987 and 3rd December 1987 relating to trade marks; and recognises the importance for the completion of the Single Market of both the creation of a Community trade mark system and the harmonisation of national laws relating to trade marks:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 8.

Division No. 291]
[10.52 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alton, David
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob






Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miscampbell, Norman


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gill, Christopher
Shelton, Sir William


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Gorst, John
Speller, Tony


Gow, Ian
Stevens, Lewis


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hague, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Harris, David
Thorne, Neil


Hayward, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Viggers, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waller, Gary


Irvine, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Jack, Michael
Watts, John


Janman, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Key, Robert
Wheeler, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Knapman, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Winterton, Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan



Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Lightbown, David
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Buckley, George J.
Wigley, Dafydd


Cox, Tom



Dalyell, Tam
Tellers for the Noes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


McCartney, Ian
Mr. Martin Redmond.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Planning Restrictions and Crime Prevention

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being here at this hour and I apologise to him for not having been able to let him have the-text-of my speech in advance, although I am quite sure that he will provide me with a satisfactory reply.
It is not my purpose to indict Departments, although it may appear that I am being a little critical of them. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that all Departments recognise1h importance of crime-prevention measures and the need to ensure that petty bureaucratic restrictions in the name of planning do not get in their way.
The story starts with a chap who runs an antique shop somewhere in my constituency. I am being careful not to identify him because I do not want the press to go sniffing round him. If my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the man's name, I hope that he will not mention it. His shop has been broken into three times over about the past year; much stock was stolen and much damage done. The cost of insurance was to be so huge that it would have put him out of business, so, sensibly, he installed some iron shutters. There is nothing unsightly about them; they are painted dark green and tone in with the rest of the street. A chap came round from the council and told him that he should not have put up the shutters without planning permission. Council officers cannot authorise such planning permission. It must be put on the agenda of the next planning committee, which inevitably would lead to a delay of a couple of months and allow time for at least one more break in.
I did not intend to raise the matter with the council because it appeared that there was an issue of principle that should be taken up, Accordingly, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and sent a copy to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. The Department of the Environment replied 15 days later and stated that it had referred the matter to the Welsh Office. The Welsh Office replied another 15 days later and said that it was busy trying to discover the name of the chap concerned. I did not want it to find out his name, so I wrote, almost by return of post, a mildly reproving letter. I wanted a statement from whatever Department was responsible that burglary prevention devices should not be subject to rather footling planning restrictions.
I received a letter on 23 June from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, about which I was rather unhappy. It began:
Thank you for … your letter … about … one of your constituents who put up iron shutters to prevent his shop being burgled.
The second paragraph said that if my constituent wanted advice about how to protect his shop against burglary he should contact his chief constable. He had already put up the shutters and therefore did not need advice from the chief constable. All he wanted was no interference from the local authority.
I replied rather tartly to my hon. Friend, for which I apologise because I have the highest regard for his qualities and abilities as a Minister. He is one of the Ministers whom I most admire. His reply to me was manifestly a little hurt. The last paragraph said:
You may be interested to see a copy of the enclosed circular".
The circular was not enclosed, so I had to ring up to obtain it. My hon. Friend's reply was rather good, but once again he was trying to discover the name of the chap, which is neither here nor there. In fact he referred to him by name, but I shall not do so.
In his reply, my hon. Friend said:
Under Section 22(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 planning permission is required when the proposed changes would materially alter the external appearance.
I maintain that putting in steel roller blinds of a colour that harmonises with the rest of the building does not materially alter the external appearance. I hope that after the debate my hon. Friend will have a word with the Department of Environment to make it accept that and to instruct local authorities that this should not happen.
This case seems to run counter to everything that the Home Office says. An excellent circular dated 30 January 1984—a little old, I suppose—refers to the need to take effective measures to discourage burglary. These actions run counter to the spirit of that message. Pettifogging local bureaucracy is getting in the way of the admirable efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister to reduce the spate of burglaries.
I want to raise another matter and, for once, no blame attaches to any Government Department. Mrs. Banks, a splendid lady from Kinmel bay in my constituency, brought all her neighbours together to organise a neighbourhood watch scheme—something that my hon. Friend the Minister strongly approves of; indeed, the Department has issued an excellent circular to that effect. To make the scheme effective, Mrs. Banks discussed the matter with the local electricity board and put up signs according to lighting standards. The signs were in accordance with the board's requirements, being the correct size and height. They did not obscure any street signs and clearly stated that the area was a neighbourhood watch area.
The Welsh Office has been very helpful, saying:
the Department has decided to give automatic approval to any Neighbourhood Watch (or Industrial/Business Watch) signs on trunk roads provided those signs meet simple criteria related to siting and size of signs.
The signs completely fulfilled those criteria. The local borough council, Colwyn council, agreed, but Clwyd county council's area surveyor then came into action. In a letter dated 2 March, headed "Neighbourhood Watch Signs", he said:
I must advise you not to take any action with respect to the erection of the signs until you have heard from the County Surveyor.
In due course, on 18 April, Mrs. Banks heard from the area surveyor:
My Assistant … reports that most of the signs in question appear to have been attached to street lighting columns within the highway, and I must ask you to remove these signs immediately, and arrange for their re-erection detailed in the County Surveyors letter dated the 30th March, 1989.
The letter of 30 March said that any signs should be put in people's gardens. Obviously, burglars driving along the highway looking for a suitable area would not see signs in the garden but would see signs on the lamp posts.
Once again—this problem is much easier—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that county councils should not throw their weight around in this way, especially when they are acting directly contrary, not merely to the spirit of neighbourhood watch campaigns, but to the explicit instructions issued by the Home Office about the signs. A press release dated 30 March 1988 makes it plain that the Home Office considers that, provided the signs do not obscure street signs and are the right size and height, no planning objection should be made.
I have given two instances of effective measures against crime that have been impeded, if not sabotaged, by the foolish application of planning regulations. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend for anything that he can say now or that he can undertake to do by way of further correspondence to ensure that this form of obstruction does not recur.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that he has taken up so much time to look into the welfare of two individuals Mr. A, as I shall call the gentleman who my hon. Friend does not wish to have named, and Mrs. Banks, whose name may be spoken in the Chamber.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate so that he can discuss the cases of his two constituents—one named and one nameless—and so that he can raise the important issue of crime prevention. My hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue and I and my 12 colleagues on the ministerial group on crime prevention feel just as strongly that the actions of individual citizens, such as Mr. A and Mrs. Banks, are the type of actions that have done so much collectively to reduce recently the level of property crime and hence to produce an overall decline of some 6 per cent. in crime during the past 12 months, which is the biggest single fall since Winston Churchill was in No. 10 Downing street. We have been saying for some time that a rising crime rate is neither inexorable nor inevitable. The work of individuals is beginning to ensure that that statement will be found to be correct.
The particular cases which my hon. Friend has outlined tonight show that there is still much work to be done. We cannot be complacent or congratulate ourselves when bureaucracies, either national or local, fail to deliver the goods or the requisite information in the way that my hon. Friend has the right to expect.
In the case of Mr. A, the proprietor's understandable wish to protect his livelihood put him at odds not with the security-mindedness of the local planning authority, but rather more with its procedures. All organisations have procedures, regulations and routines and no place has more than the Chamber in which we are speaking tonight. Most have been introduced for sound reasons and some are beneficial. Some can also be tiresome from time to time. Misunderstandings arise and someone needs to step in to untangle the knot of misunderstanding, as my hon. Friend has.
I understand that, happily, the two sides in the case—the constituent of my hon. Friend and the local authority—are now talking to each other with a view to resolving the matter and it looks as if a satisfactory resolution to the case is in prospect. I and my hon. Friend


the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales have done all that we can, as outsiders, to ensure that that is the case.
Planning regulations run to the heart of this case. Planning authorities have to balance within their statutory powers the needs of the community at large against the wish of the applicant to receive planning permission. Developers or proprietors of shops are always wise to consult local planning departments and local police crime prevention architectural liaison officers so that crime can, as much as possible, be designed out of new buildings at an early stage. That is not so easy with old buildings when works involve rehabilitation or the bolting on of effective crime prevention devices. However, local authorities have considerable freedom and flexibility and owners contemplating improvements to the security of their premises should always talk to the planning department and to the police.
I will now develop my response to the argument in the case of Mrs. Banks before trying to draw the two cases together in response to my hon. Friend's wish that we should circulate further information. I am sure that people around the country wait eagerly daily for more Home Office circulars. My hon. Friend believes that we should circulate a further statement on crime prevention. The cases of the shop and the signs for the neighbourhood watch scheme both point to the need for more explanation.
Neighbourhood watch signs are an obvious expression of the activities of individual active citizens gathered together to do something to prevent crime. Alas, a few local authorities have taken overall exception to neighbourhood watch signs and have refused permission for such signs to be erected. As a direct response to that bizarre behaviour, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made regulations early last year—described in the press notice of 1988 to which my hon. Friend referred—enabling organisers of properly organised watch schemes, established in co-operation with the police, to display signs without first having to obtain the local planning authority's consent—here is the twist in Mr. Bank's case—provided the sign is not placed on "highway" land, which has an existence in law. Therefore, the so-called "deemed consent" provision refers to everything in a local authority's area with the exception of highway land. However, my right hon. Friend has encouraged highway authorities to grant automatic permission for signs on the highway—such as on lamp posts—unless they would cause a hazard to traffic or pedestrians. I have no idea whether the signs erected by Mrs. Banks could be judged to cause a hazard to traffic or to pedestrians—

Sir Anthony Meyer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend shakes his head—he feels that they are positively beneficial in their effect. If that is the case, I believe that it is well within the discretion of the local authority—here I speak as a humble Home Office Minister rather than as a Department of the Environment Minister, learned in these things—to allow such signs to be erected on lamp posts on highway land, unless they cause a hazard to traffic or upset pedestrians in some way. Driving around the country, I have seen many such signs, erected on lamp posts to the benefit of local neighbourhood watch schemes and thus of local communities. Provided that it is satisfied that no hazard is caused, I urge the authority to exercise its discretion as soon as possible.
When we consider the shutters outside the shop, in the case of Mr. A and the neighbourhood watch signs that Mrs. Banks has caused to be erected in her area, we come up against the need to issue to local authorities and to other interested parties, such as the police forces, which are in the lead in crime prevention, some further refinement of the advice that we issued in circular 8 of 1984, which my hon. Friend eventually saw. My hon. Friend suggested that we should perhaps issue a circular to local authorities saying that planning permission is not required for crime prevention installations provided that they do not project on the highway or are not obtrusively unsightly.
That is a difficult proposition for me to answer tonight as I am not ministerially responsible for planning issues. However, I will take into account what my hon. Friend has said because I agree with the drift of his argument that it seems necessary to review and update the advice given to local authorities and others in the inter-departmental crime prevention circular 8 of 1984, issued five years ago. We are actively considering how new guidance might be framed, and we will be inviting views on our proposals in a few months' time with the hope of issuing something definitive before the end of the year. When the draft guidance is put out for consultation, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is sent a copy and has the chance to make his comments. It may become clear that the important issues of detail such as my hon. Friend has identified should be dealt with in that guidance, and I will be happy therefore to consider their inclusion in that framework. I hope that my hon. Friend will take up that offer when he sees the draft guidance and has the chance to comment on it.
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my words. I certainly do not treat his words about Mr. A or Mrs. Banks lightly, as I hope I have shown. My time has been well spent because I have had the opportunity to respond to questions about those two cases and to inform the House that we are intent on reviewing the circular and issuing new guidance towards the end of the year. We shall be guided and educated in that by my hon. Friend's excellent speech, to which I have been pleased to reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.